OVII R11 CPC | Plaint On Mere Possibility Of Right Being Infringed Without Legitimate Basis For That Right Does Not Disclose Cause of Action: MP High Court

The bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar further held that in the said circumstances, the plaint can be rejected for want of cause of action-

A perusal of the aforesaid pleadings of the plaintiff clearly reveals that on one hand it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the disputed land, and on the other hand plaintiff itself has filed a suit for execution of the sale deed against the defendants in respect of the same land. In such circumstances, testing the facts of the case on the anvil of the aforesaid decisions of the supreme court in the cases of Dahiben (supra) and Colonel Shrwwan Kumar Jaipuriyar (supra) this court is of the considered opinion that it is a case of clever drafting only, as the plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate its right to claim the relief as sought in the plaint, as has been aptly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Colonel Shrwwan Kumar Jaipuriyar (supra), that a mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action.

Facts of the case were that the Respondent/Plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect to the suit property. It was his case that he had purchased a part of a property from the Petitioners/Defendants with an assurance that the remaining portion of the property i.e., suit property would also be sold to him. However, the Defendants entered into an agreement with potential buyers, which was also the subject of a separate suit wherein the said agreement was declared as null and void.

The Petitioners/Defendants had moved an application under OVII R11 CPC. The same, however, was rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court.

The Petitioners submitted before the Court that the Plaint of the Respondent/Plaintiff did not demonstrate any cause of action. It was argued that he had placed no documents on record to show that he had any right on the suit property. Thus, it was asserted that the Respondent/Plaintiff had no locus standi, vis-à-vis the suit.

Per contra, the Respondent/Plaintiff submitted that the court below had rightly rejected the application under OVII R11 CPC. It was also contended that the Petitioners/Defendants were indulging in dilatory tactics and thus, their petition was liable to be dismissed.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the arguments put forth by the Petitioners. It noted that although the subject Plaint mentioned the date when the cause of action arose but did not reveal as to when the contesting Defendants refused to sell the land to the Plaintiff. The Court also observed that the Respondent/Plaintiff had placed nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioners had agreed to sell the suit property to him-

Although, on perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is appears that the plaintiff has mentioned the date on which the cause of action has arisen to him, but nowhere in the plaint, it is stated as to exactly when the contesting defendants refused to sale the land to the plaintiff. Otherwise also, there is no document filed along with the plaint to demonstrate that the contesting defendants ever agreed to sale the land to the plaintiff. On the contrary, in para 5, 6 and 7 which refers to the decree passed in earlier suit of the plaintiff against the defendants, as also the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants…

With the aforesaid observations, the revision was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. Resultantly, the Court also allowed the Defendants’ application under OVII R11 CPC corollary to which the Plaint filed by the Respondent before the trial court was rejected.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 29