Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant No. 2 under section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract), No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No. 184/2010, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It appears that respondents -plaintiffs have filed the suit against the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 -defendants seeking compensation of Rs. 2,25,00,000/ - for the death of Shri Rakesh Chug, who happened to be the son of respondent no. 1, husband of respondent no. 2 and father of respondents no. 3 and 4. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the said Rakesh Chug was admitted in the hospital of defendant no. 1 and was treated by the defendant no. 2 i.e. the petitioner on 19.2.2010 and that due to negligence and carelessness on the part of defendant no. 2, the said Rakesh Chug expired on 19.3.2010. In the said suit, the present petitioner had submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose the cause of action. The said application has been rejected by the trial court vide the impugned order.
(2.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal for the petitioner that no cause of action had arisen against the present petitioner as the deceased was treated by the petitioner on 19.2.2010 and thereafter he was discharged from the hospital and he was again re -admitted. According to him, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and therefore no cause of action had arisen against him. Taking the court to the contents of the plaint, the learned counsel has submitted that there should be meaningful drafting of the plaint for showing the cause of action, which was not there in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs. Relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another, : AIR 2005 SC 3180 (1), learned counsel has submitted the essential components of negligence were not alleged in the plaint by the plaintiffs and therefore also the plaint was liable to be rejected against the petitioner. The court, having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the contents of the plaint, does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the bare perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiffs have alleged the negligence and carelessness on the part of the petitioner -defendant no. 2 who had treated the deceased while working in the hospital of defendant no. 1. After narrating the facts, para - 25 of the plaint clearly discloses the cause of action to the effect it had arisen on 19.2.2010 and thereafter. Under the circumstances, the trial court has rightly observed in impugned order that the cause of action was disclosed in the plaint. Whether the petitioner -defendant no. 2 was negligent in giving the treatment to the deceased on 19.2.2010 or not and whether he would be liable to pay compensation or not, would be a matter of evidence and the plaintiffs could not be non -suited on such grounds under Order VII Rule 11. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;