GOPAL Vs. OMEGA INFRASTURCTURE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge is the order and decree dated 12.7.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the court rejected the plaint of the appellant-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action. Against this order and decree, the instant first appeal is filed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffappellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that registered sale deed dated 5.12006 be declared null and void. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellants had sold a property bearing No.340 situated at village Udaipuria, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur to the respondents vide registered sale deed dated 5.12006. In lieu of the said property, a consideration of Rupees 48, 30, 000 was agreed to be paid by the respondent to the plaintiff-appellants. Out of the total consideration of 48, 30, 000, a sum of 1 lakh rupees was paid by the respondent through a cheque and for the remaining part of the consideration, three post-dated cheques of Rupees 40, 00, 000, 3, 65, 000 and 3, 65, 000 were given by the respondent to the plaintiffs. These three cheques, when sought to be en-cashed by the plaintiff-appellants, were returned with endorsement of "stop payment". It is the case of the plaintiffs-appellants that the respondent, with an intention to deceive the plaintiff-appellants, issued these cheques and subsequently directed the banks to stop the payment.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC contending therein that the non-payment of consideration did not amount to deceive and since the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action, the same was liable to be rejected within the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The respondent further contended that since the plaintiffsappellants had not sought the cancellation of the sale deed, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. Thus, the respondent prayed for the rejection of the plaint at the outset.