N V SRINIVASA MURTHY Vs. MARIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals preferred by the plaintiffs the only question involved is whether the trial Court and the High Court were right in holding that the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was liable to rejection The High Court by the impugned order passed in Misc. Second Appeal reversed the order of the first appellate Court and upheld that of the trial Court.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in this appeal contends that if the plaint allegations containing all facts are read in proper perspective, cause of action has clearly been pleaded and the High Court grossly erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.

(3.) With the assistance and on the comments and counter-comments of the parties, we have carefully gone through the contents of the plaint. We find that the plaint has been very cleverly drafted with a view to get over the bar of limitation and payment of ad valorem Court-fee. According to us, the plaint was rightly held to be liable to rejection if not on the alleged ground of non-disclosure of any cause of action but on the ground covered by clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure namely that the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be clearly barred by law.