Cause of Action and Effect of Filing Application under O.7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Whether Imposition of Costs on Defendant is a Possibility ?
In a case, A (plaintiff) filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,60,000/-, i.e., principal amount of Rs.32 lakhs along with pre-suit interest of Rs.3,60,000/- besides pendent lite and future interest.
A in the plaint has contended that Sh. Raj Kumar Chawla was the proprietor of Defendants No. 4 and 5 concerns and is the predecessor of defendants No.1 to 3.
Defendant [D] by an application has contended that A have miserably failed to file any written condition for refund of double amount of the amount paid by the A to the predecessor of D. D filed an application under O. 7 Rule 11 (a) for rejection of plaint. It is true that plaint under Order 7 rule 11(a) is to be rejected where it does not disclose any cause of action.
It was reiterated that "pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be irrelevant". It is only where on examination of the plaint the court comes to a conclusion that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, the same is liable to be rejected. While examining the case under Order 7 rule 11, if the court comes to a conclusion that the plaint discloses a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected. The defence raised by the defendant in his Written Statement is irrelevant and is not to be considered.
So, by concluding that application filed by D was without merit and only to delay and protract litigation, costs were imposed on D.
Refer Indu Chawla v Bharat Chawala [2014] GCtR 4366 (Delhi).
Lesson : Adventurism backfired. Perhaps, a lesson that efforts to delay disposal of case would entail imposition of costs on party which tries to delay it. This also supports the proposition that adjournment seekers, too, must meet the same fate of being slapped with imposition of costs because adjournment is a ploy to delay litigations in many cases.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.