STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SOMNATH SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in Money Suit No. 138 of 1996 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela are the petitioners and the plaintiff is the opposite party in this civil revision. An application filed by the petitioners to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code' ) was rejected by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rourkela on 29.9. 1997. That was challenged before this Court by the present petitioners in Civil Revision No. 327 of 1997. On 20.11.1998 that revision was disposed of by this Court directing the court below in the following manner :

(2.) IT appears from the contention of the parties that petitioners challenged to the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause (a) of Code. In other words, they wanted rejection of the plaint on the ground of non -disclosure of cause of action and that the plaintiff has no locus standi to claim damage for the company in the name and style of M/s Mitujini Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. because according to the plaint averments he does not represent such company either as a member of Board of Directors or Managing Director and when no legal status had been acquired by him so as to claim for the damage on behalf of the company.

(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that plaintiff was a Director and the Managing Director of the Firm when the loan transactions were negotiated and correspondences made subsequently in respect of sanction of the loan have been entertained by the petitioners, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit by claiming damage for the Company as well as for himself. The Court below also held that on a total reading of the plaint it did not find lack of cause of action because a case of damage has been properly pleaded.