RANJEET MAL Vs. POONAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court was in error in refusing to reject the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11. C. P. C.

(2.) It is not disputed that in para 2 of the plaint the plaintiff had stated that the land in dispute belonged to him and that he had sub-divided a large chunk of land purchased by him with the permission of the Urban Improvement Trust. Jodhpur and sold portions of such land as separate plots to various persons. According to the plaintiff, the land in dispute, which remained after sale of plots, belonged to him. Hence a suit for possession and mesne profits was filed by him against the defendant on the alleged ground that he has made unlawful encroachment upon the land in dispute.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant petitioner urges that the plaint should not be read in a formal manner but it should be read along with the law on the subject and that a perusal of the provisions of the Rajas-than Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstitution and Improvement of Plots) Rules, 1975 would make it clear that the open spaces left after sub-division vested in the Urban Improvement Trust and that in view of the said provisions of law, the plaint did not disclose any cause of action for filing the suit, because the correct legal position was that the land in dispute did not belong to the plaintiff. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Shakti Sugars Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1981 Delhi 212. In that case the question was as to whether the Stale Trading Corporation was the agent of the Central Government, by reason of which the latter was liable for breach of contract committed by the former. It was urged on behalf of the Union of India that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the Union of India and the suit should be dismissed against it. The learned single Judge referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. Satyapal. AIR 1977 SC 2421 and held that it is to be seen if "actually according to law" the contention contained in the plaint that the defendant was an agent of the Union of India was justified or not and mete allegation of the plaintiff was not enough. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to agree with the view taken in Shakti Sugar's case, because at the stage of deciding the question as to whether the plaint should be rejected under Clause (a) of Order VII, Rule 11, C. P. C. the Court is requited to find out from the pleadings of the plaintiff as to whether any cause of action was disclosed from the allegations contained in the plaint. If a legal question is raised by the defendant in his written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff and if the same is to he decided at that stage, then it would be prejudging the matter, which should form the subject matter of an issue, as a proposition of law asserted by one party and denied by the other. With utmost respect to the learned Judge, I would humbly say that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Arivandandam's case laid down that there should be a meaningful reading of the plaint and not a formal reading thereof. What their Lordships desired to emphasise in that case was that the plaintiff merely by a camouflage cannot maintain a suit, if according to the substance of the allegations made in the plaint no cause of action worth the name was disclosed and fruitless litigation should not be permitted. The 'meaningful reading of the plaint', in my humble view, would not amount to probing into the allegations made in the plaint on the basis of the pleas raised by the defendant in his defence and then finally deciding the questions of law which are in dispute between the parties, Whether the plaintiffs case is "actually" maintainable according to law or not, cannot fall within the ambit of 'a meaningful reading of the plaint'.