SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. World Tanker Carrier Corporation and Ors.

(ORDER 2 and and ORDER 6 is put just for a better understanding. The relevant part in this
judgement is the second issue highlighted. (the injunction for publication of libellous
content- suit was dismissed)
Topic: Rejection of plaint
 Brief facts.
The plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking a twofold relief (a) decree in favour of the plaintiffs
and against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 50 crores being the damages suffered by the
plaintiffs and (b) for a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs being a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 are exclusively owned and controlled by the second and third
plaintiffs who are Indian Shareholders, citizens of India and are in no manner whatsoever
linked, owned or controlled, legally or beneficially by the Merali family. Further declaration
is sought to the effect that the legal and beneficial ownership of the vessels managed by the
first plaintiffs vests with the entities/owners unconnected with the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs have taken out Notice of Motion No. 1663 of 1999 for an order of
injunction restraining the defendants from making any further publication
or claims in the media with regard to the unseaworthiness of the vessel

 Issue:
Defendants have taken out Notice of Motion No. 1638 of 1999 for striking out the plaint as
being unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and also being an abuse of the
process of Court under Order 6, Rule 16 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

The defendants have also taken out Notice of Motion No. 1272 of 1999 for dismissal of the
suit under Order 7, Rule 11-A of the C.P.C; as being without jurisdiction. It is prayed
that the issue of jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue.

 Relevant Parts and Laws:

(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make
in respect of the cause of action.

(2) Relinquishment of part of claim: Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or
intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in
respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs:- A person entitled to more than one relief in
respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits,
except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for
any relief so omitted."

Thus under Order 2, Rule 1, the plaintiffs are duty bound to claim the entire relief.

 Part of the cause of action with regard to libel has clearly arisen within the jurisdiction of
this Court. In spite of this Court having jurisdiction, in my view, the plaint has to be
rejected on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action and it is an abuse of
process of Court.
 In order to appreciate the rival submissions of learned Counsel on this point it would be
necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the C.P.C. "

Order VI, Rule 16. Striking out pleadings :---The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading---
(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or
(b).....
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court". "

Order VII, Rule 11. Rejection of plaint :---

In India under Order 7, Rule 11 the plaint can be rejected where it does not disclose a
cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement made in the plaint to be
barred by any law.

For the purpose of deciding that the plaint "does not disclose a cause of action", the Courts
generally look only at the plaint. However, there is a rider to this rule, that when the plaint is
based on a document, the same can also be looked into.

Decision: Plaintiffs have deliberately mixed up the relief for damages with the relief for
declaration in order to give the illusion of a cause of action and that this Court will have
jurisdiction to entertain the same.

Suit is dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the C.P.C., 1908 and other applicable
provisions, as being without jurisdiction and NON DISCLOSURE OF CAUSE OF
ACTION.’
 State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. G.S. Gill and Ors.(Topic: summons)

Facts:
The first respondent, a general candidate, was appointed as a Junior Technical Assistant in
the Department of Industries of the State of Punjab. The post of Assistant Superintendent,
Quality Marking center, (Textile), i.e., in the next promotional cadre, is the single post in that
cadre. The said post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates as per the roster .

the second respondent who was a qualified candidate was considered and duly promoted to
the said post. The first respondent, feeling aggrieved, filed writ petition in the High Court
seeking relief in the form of a mandamus or direction to the Government to dereserve the
carried forward post and to consider his case for promotion as a general candidate

He contended that since it was the solitary post, reservation in favour of a Scheduled Caste
would amount to 100% reservation violating Articles 16(1) and 14 of the Constitution.

Only relevant part:

the notice sent to the first respondent was received back by the Registry with the postal
endorsement "No such person" indicating avoidance thereof on his part. Consequently, he
was set ex parte. The second respondent was directed to file counter-affidavit. Even today
the first respondent is not appearing either in person or through counsel.

Decision is not relevant because it’s a constitution case and doesn’t say anything about CPC.
 Bhabia Devi Vs. Permanand Pd. Yadav(Topic: Summons)

Facts:

The respondent had filed a suit for specific performance on the foot of an agreement
alleged to have been executed by the petitioner.

The petitioner was served notice but since she did not contest the suit, ex-parte decree was
granted.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. seeking
setting aside of the ex-parte decree.

Therein, her specific case was that she was not residing at Garhia village and, therefore, the
notice could not be deemed to have been served on her. The endorsement is not correct.

Court’s findings:

The question was gone into by the courts below after recording the evidence of one
Laxuman Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and process server.

It is their case that on January 15, 1985 when the summons were handed over to Mst.
Bhabia Devi and when she was acquainted with the facts, she refused to sing or put thumb
impression on the notice.

When the process server had gone to serve it on her personally on April 2, 1984 to the
village and also on April 9, 1984 when the registered card acknowledgement was sent, she
refused to acknowledge it.

Apart from the aforementioned two modes for service of notice, , there was yet another
mode by way of Gazette publication. An attempt has been made on behalf of the appellant
to say that she being illiterate lady could not learn about the Gazette publication.

Decision:

The petitioner had refused to accept the notice. Consequently, she was rightly set ex- parte.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to contest the case on merits. We cannot go
into the merits since the appeal was not subject matter in any of the appeals filed either
under Section 96 or Section 100, C.P.C. Special leave petition is dismissed