AJIT BORTHAKUR,J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. S. K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.
(2.) By preferring this revision, under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quash the impugned order, dated 27.03.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Seppa, East Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh in Misc Case No. 05/2016, arising out of Money Suit No. 04/2016 and/or to pass an order, rejecting the plaint filed in the aforesaid suit, which does not disclose any cause of action for instituting the suit, which is barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, and/or further to allow opportunity to submit the written statement, in case the prayer of rejection of plaint is not accepted.
(3.) The case of the petitioner/defendant, namely, Jang Large Sized Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., which is represented by its Managing Director, in brief, is that the respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid money suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Seppa for recovery of Rs. 1,53,39,674/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred. Seventy Four) Only and to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only, towards the litigation cost. The petitioner/defendant society has contended that the respondent/plaintiff is its Power of Attorney holder and he has been depositing cheques in the account of the petitioner/defendant. From the amount he deposited, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 deducted 7%, defendant No. 2 deducted 3% and defendant No. 3 deducted 3% from every such bill amount of the respondent/plaintiff. From 16.06.2015 till 01.11.2016, the respondent/plaintiff deposited many cheques and the defendants having deducted at the aforesaid rates amounts from him and in this way a total amount of Rs. 1,53,39,674/- was deducted. The respondent/plaintiff further averred that he made verbal representations not to make such deductions and also served with legal notice, but the same also failed to evoke any result. The petitioner/defendant has contended that it was the then Managing Director namely, Phurpa Manpa, who has now been replaced by Sangey Phuntso, filed an application on 08.02.2017, under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, for want of cause of action, being disclosed and on the other hand, the validity of the Powers of Attorneys, dated 07.07.2015 and 08.04.2016 expired on 31.03.2017 and as such, the respondent/plaintiff has no locus standi to claim whatsoever on the amount received against the said contractual works in the absence of any specific contract in that regard. However, the Court of learned Civil Judge at Seppa by the impugned order, dated 27.03.2017, passed in Money Suit No. 04/2016 rejected the application on the grounds that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Seppa has the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and that the cause of action, for the suit was disclosed elaborately at para 4 and para 5 of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Seppa fixed the suit on 26.05.2017 for filing of written statement.;