MANPREET KAUR Vs. BALWINDER SINGH GOGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore on 6.12.1999 in Title Suit No. 804 of 1999 -I. Vide the impugned order, learned Civil Judge returned the plaint to the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court in view of the provision in Section 10 of the Companies Act 1956 (in short, 'the Act). Plaintiff is the petitioner against that order. Defendant No.1, i.e., the contesting defendant, is the opposite party No.1 in this revision.

(3.) THOUGH a written note of submission has been filed by the opposite party mentioning about various provision of law from the Act and several reported decisions, but at the time of argument Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party confines his contention to the factual aspect available from the plaint and the provision of law in Sections 10, 397 and 399 of the Act. He argues that on a bare reading of the plaint and the provision in Section 397 of the Act there cannot be any controversy that the relief which the plaintiff claims are cognizable by the Court mentioned in Section 10 of the Act, and therefore the decision of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or erroneous approach.