ARUNA KAR Vs. AMARENDRA NATH SANYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the Order No. 49 dated December 4, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4 th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 7 of 2001 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C. P. C.

(2.) The plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 7 of 2001 against the petitioners and the other opposite parties for specific performance of contract, injunction, damages and other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4 th Court, Alipore. According to the plaint case, two agreements for sale both dated July 29, 1999 were executed by the defendant no. s 1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the premises No. 1A, Mahendra Road, under P. S. Bhabanipur, Calcutta-700025. So, the said suit had been filed for the reliefs stated. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. They filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C. P. C. for rejection of the plaint and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the defendants have filed the said application.

(3.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record including the supplementary affidavits filed by the parties, I find that the defendants have raised various grounds for rejection of the plaint. But the main matters for rejection of the plaint which should be under consideration in the instant application is whether the plaint discloses the cause of action to file the suit and whether from the statement made in the plaint, the suit is barred by any law.