Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 17 CS 457/23
VISHAL NARANG Vs. SHASHIKALA
DLET010113612023
30.07.2026
Present: Sh. Vishav Ranjan Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff (through VC).
None for the defendant.
Perusal of record reveals that Written Statement has
been filed by defendant no. 1 & 2 only. On the basis of memo of
parties, it seems that defendant no.3 is brother of defendant no.2.
RC sent to defendant no.3 received unserved.
Issue fresh summons for settlement of issues to the
defendant no.3 through all permissible mode, on filing of PF,
returnable for NDOH. The defendant no.3 be also served through
affixation. The summons be affixed on the outer door or some
other conspicuous part of the suit property. Process be also given
dasti. Defendant no.3 be served through office of Ld. District
Judge, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
Perusal of record reveals that an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, bearing IA no.1/2026, filed by
defendant no.1 & 2 is pending. Reply thereto is also on record.
Arguments on the said application on behalf of
plaintiff heard and record perused.
The defendant no.1 & 2 are seeking rejection of the
plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a valid
cause of action. It is alleged that the present suit is an abuse of
the process of law and has been filed as a counter blast to
criminal case under Section 138 N. I. Act filed by them against
the plaintiff with respect to cheques of Rs.17,50,000/-.
It is a settled proposition of law that for deciding the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the averments
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto are
germane. The court cannot look into the defence putforth by the
defendant. In the application, defendants No.1 & 2 have sought
rejection of plaint on twin grounds, i.e., no cause of action is
disclosed and they have already filed a criminal case under
Section 138 N. I. Act against the plaintiff.
“Cause of action” means every fact which would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to
support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material
facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to
entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
A meaningful and careful reading of the plaint
makes it apparent that the plaintiff has revealed about the
cheques, however, he claims that the defendants defamed him by
passing remarks which have been disclosed in para no.13 to 18
of the plaint. Consequently, the plaint does disclose a valid cause
of action. Even otherwise, rejection of the plaint at the threshold
entails serious consequences and this power has to be exercised
sparingly. The application in hand is devoid of merits and is
accordingly, dismissed.
Written Statement was filed by defendant no.1 & 2
on 30.09.2024. Replication has not been filed till date. The right
of plaintiff to file replication stands closed.
Renotify the matter for appearance of defendant
no.3/completion of pleadings/ framing of issues on 17.09.2026.
(SHUCHI LALER)
District Judge-02 (East),
Karkardooma Courts/30.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --