ZUARI INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COMMUNIDADE OF SANCOALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. By the present revision application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th March, 2006, passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) of C. P. C.

(2.) The application by the petitioner was for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose the cause of action.

(3.) Placing reliance in the decisions in the matter of I. T. C. Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and ors. , reported in (1998) 2 SCC 70 and T. Arivandandam vs. T. V. Satyapal and anr. , (1977) 4 SCC 467 and drawing attention to the various provisions of the Code of Comunidades ("the said Code" for short) which is in force in the State of Goa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint inspite of the fact that proper reading of the plaint would reveal that it fails to disclose real cause of action for filing the suit. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the suit has been filed for alleged forfeiture of leasehold rights and for recovery of possession of the property on the assumption that the possession of the property in question, was delivered to the petitioner as the lessee thereof when, in fact, the document annexed to the plaint discloses clear conveyance of ownership rights in terms of the provisions of the said Code and more particularly in terms of Article 324 thereof. Taking through the copy of the plaint and particularly paragraphs 9, 10 and 17 thereof, it was submitted that the averments made therein, read with the copy of the Deed dated 31. 3. 1971 filed along with the plaint, apparently disclose that the property was granted in terms of Article 324 of the said Code and, therefore, there is no case of any leasehold rights being created in favour of the petitioner by the Comunidade and, hence, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the purpose of the reliefs prayed for. In the circumstances, applying the law laid down by the Apex Court, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint.