- (1.) THE facts of the may be briefly stated, in order to arrive at a decision on this knotty point. It has been alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 company and the defendant No. 2 company used to run a joint ferry service to and from Ahiritola Sadar Ghat to bandhaghat on the footing of a joint licence from 21-5-1936, the period of the licence being ten years. That period was over, but both the companies jointly ran that ferry service. On the 12th July, 1966, a fresh written agreement was arrived at between them in respect of the said joint ferry service. On 18-11-75, the defendant No. 1 company terminated such agreement. Soon after that, namely, on the 24th November, 1975, the other company, namely, the plaintiff No. 1 company instituted Title suit No. 2026 of 1975 for a declaration that the said agreement of the 12th July 1966 was still subsisting and for permanent injunction. Ultimately, on the 15th July, 1976, the suit was withdrawn but no liberty to institute a fresh suit was given. Then the plaintiff No. 1 company instituted the present Title suit for a declaration, for framing a scheme for accounts and other reliefs.
(2.) THE defendant No. 1 company appeared and put in an application for rejection of the plaint in accordance with the provisions of Order VII, rule 11 read with the section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court heard both the parties and allowed the objection to prevail and rejected the plaint. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) THE case has been argued far several days. But the decision can be arrived at without dilating much on the facts of the case. It has been first contended by Mr. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee appearing on behalf of the appellant that the trial court fell into a grave error in rejecting the plaint under order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure. He referred to several decisions including those reported in 41 C. W. N. 193, Mayadas v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. A. I. R. 1953 Cal. 222, Sreedan v. Tincori, and a. I. R. 1961 Punjab 2t8. Bhagat v. Satnam Transport. It has been stated that for the purpose of rejection of plaint, the court is empowered only to look into the plaint itself and not to any other extraneous matter.;