SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The defendant nos. 1 to 4 in a suit for partition have preferred this revisional application against an order whereby the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.
(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiffs had suppressed the material facts, having germane bearing on the suit, in the plaint and as such the plaint ought to have been rejected. It is submitted that Ghumchia Singh Roy, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, sold out the entire suit property and as such, no portion of the property was left for being inherited by the plaintiffs and some of the other defendants as mentioned in the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relevant deed of transfer was suppressed in the plaint. It was further argued that no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint against some of the defendants, including the present petitioners. It is further submitted that, had the facts suppressed been disclosed in the plaint, the court would not have jurisdiction to entertain and decree the partition suit, and as such the plaint ought to have been rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel cites in this context a judgment reported at (2006) 3 SCC 100 (Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and others v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others ) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if relevant facts were suppressed in the plaint, the court could stay the suit or reject the plaint, irrespective of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 10 of the Code. Learned counsel cites another judgment reported at (2016) 2 WBLR (Cal) 286 (State Trading Corporation of India Limited and Anr. v. Glencore Grain B.V. ), where a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, following the judgment of the Supreme Court as mentioned above, held in the same line.;