SRUSHTI VISION Vs. ULHAS BUYAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application arises from the order dated 17th February, 1999 passed by the District Judge at Margao in Civil Suit No. 1/96. By the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the application dated 29-3-1997 filed by the petitioners herein for rejection of the plaint in the said Civil Suit No. 1/1996. The application was filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code complaining that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action.

(2.) THE petitioners as well as the respondent have filed written submissions, apart in addition to the oral submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. In support of their submissions, they have relied upon the decisions in the matter of (Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Picture Association and others), reported in A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 1443; (Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. v. Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. and another), reported in 1998 (3) Bom. C. R. 481 : 1998 (1) All. M. R. 290; (Smt. Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and another), reported in A. I. R. 1987 Delhi 13; (K. A. Venugopala Setty v. Dr. Suryakantha U. Kamath), reported in A. I. R. 1992 Karnataka 1, (A. Susiah v. S. Muniswamy), reported in A. I. R. 1966 Madras 175 and (T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal and another), reported in 1977 (4) S. C. C. 467.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of records, including the written submissions, it is clear that the only ground on which the relief for rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was sought for was non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint.