EIH LIMITED Vs. NADIA A. VIRJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G.A. 218 of 2013 is taken out by the defendant for rejection of the plaint primarily on the ground that the suit is barred by law. Essentially this is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, though such provision does not apply in stricto sensu to the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction in view of Order 49 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such applications are frequently entertained not under Order 7 Rule 11, but the prevalent practice is to take off the plaint from the file. Principally the application of such nature is dealt with on the principles of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code and, therefore, the scrutiny should be confined to the averments made in the plaint. Both the learned Advocates have agreed on the above proposition and restricted their arguments on the statements made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto.

(2.) Before proceeding to deal with the points agitated by the respective Counsels, the case made out in the plaint is summarised as under:

(3.) On the basis of the aforementioned statements, the plaintiff claims for a decree for 'vacate' and 'khas' possession of the shop room/show room along with a decree for damages.