RAJDHANI TANSPORT COMPANY Vs. M/S. MANJEET COLLECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Article 115 of the CPC has been filed taking exception to the order of the trial Court dated 26.09.2017 dismissing an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed in the context of Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 with the contention that for want of notices, under such Section, the suit for recovery was not maintainable. The trial Court upon reading of the plaint allegations has found that an averment as regards of service of notices and acknowledgement of the liability by the petitioner/defendant. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the application.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant disputes the fact of service of notices and acknowledgement there upon, in the opinion of this Court, such contention is in the realm of facts which are required to be addressed after parties lead evidence.

(3.) The trial Court has gone by the plaint allegations as required under law while dealing with application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Whether there was a notice issued by the respondent/plaintiff and there was a acknowledgement of the liability are questions in the realm of facts which are required to be adjudged after parties lead evidence. Therefore, no illegality is committed by the trial Court while rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on that score.