S C BOSE AND CO Vs. G SRIKANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent by paying a Court fee of Rs. 1,10,526.00 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,03,110.00 as damages from the revision-petitioners under three heads i.e., loss of earnings on account of denial of employment, loss of career development and damages for mental agony. In that suit revision petitioners filed a petition under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC to reject the plaint on various grounds. The learned Judge by the order under revision dismissed the same on the ground that the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the plaint will have to be decided only at the time of trial. Hence this revision.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners took me through the entire plaint and all the documents filed therewith in minute detail and argued the case for almost a day by raising several contentions.

(3.) His first contention is that inasmuch as the trial Court did not advert to the contentions raised and dismissed the petition through a mute order the same is unsustainable and contended that since the criminal case for defamation filed by the respondent in connection with the telegram issued by the revision-petitioners was quashed by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., on a petition filed by the revision-petitioners, the suit is barred under Section 11 CPC, and so the respondent is also estopped under Section 115 of the Evidence Act to prosecute this suit. His next contentions are that there is no cause of action for the respondent to file the suit and the suit is also hopelessly barred by time. His next contention is that since the suit was numbered after coming into force of the CPC Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 and since the plaintiff did not comply with sub-rules (e) and (f) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, the Court below erred in not rejecting the plaint. It in his contention that inasmuch as the plaint was verified on 15/4/2002, and the Court fee stamp was purchased on 16/4/2002, whereby it cannot be said that there is a proper verification and presentation of the plaint. It is his contention that inasmuch as the list of documents was filed on 17/6/2002, only after the office took an objection, and since the original documents are not filed along with the plaint presented into Court on 17/4/2002, mandatory provisions of Order VII CPC are not complied with by the respondent. His next contention is that since the respondent, who claimed damages under several heads, did not pay Court fee separately, though the office took an objection that the Court fee has to be paid separately, it is clear that there is deficit Court fee on the plaint. His next contention is that since the respondent, in his letter dated 11/8/1999 addressed to the Chief Counsular Officer, admitted that the H1B Visa was not issued because of the complaint lodged by Mr. S.C. Bose, but because he had faked his GRE and TOFEL scores, it is clear that there is no cause of action for the respondent to claim damages from the revision petitioner, and in any event since respondent failed to produce any document to show that he came to know about the issuance of the telegram by the 2nd revision petitioner on 19/4/1999, and since the Counsel for the respondent, while representing the plaint on 8/7/2002, endorsed that the respondent came to know about the issuance of telegram by 2nd revision petitioner on 19-6-1999, it should be taken that respondent is not sure about the date on which he came to know about the issuance of the telegram by the 2nd revision petitioner, and that date must have been a chosen date because the plaint with the list of documents was represented on 17-6-2002. His next contention is that in view of Section 28 of the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 (for short 'the 1949 Act') no suit can be instituted without an order of the 'Council' constituted under that Act or of Central Government, and since respondent admittedly did not obtain any such order from the Council, under 1949 Act and since there is an averment that a complaint was lodged with the 'Council' constituted under 1949 Act for the alleged misconduct of the defendants, the suit is barred under 1949 Act, and in any event the communication received by the revision petitioners from the Council constituted under the 1949 Act in October 2005 shows that it closed the complaint of the respondent, respondent has no cause of action against the revision petitioners. His next contention is that in view of Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation for filing the suit is only one year, and since a careful reading of the plaint shows that the respondent was aware of the issuance of the telegram even in 1995 the suit filed in 2002 is hopelessly barred by time and in any event since the telegram was received at Chennai, cause of action should be taken to have arisen at Chennai where the American Counsulate is situate and so, the Courts at Hyderabad have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. His next contention is that inasmuch as the power of attorney, basing on which the suit is filed, does not empower its donee to file the suit, and the copy of the power of attorney filed in the Court is not attested by any responsible officer, the suit is barred under the provisions of the Power of Attorney Act and so, Section 85 of Evidence Act, and in view of the above incurable defects the trial Court ought to have rejected the same in limine on the ground of its being speculative, and to gain wrongfully at the expense of the revision petitioners.