- (1.)In these two revisions a common question arises for decision on the arguments advanced by the parties counsel. therefore, both the revisions are being decided by one and common judgment.
(2.)Both these revisions have been filed against the decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Courts/District Judge, Almora in S. C. C. Suits Nos. 6 of 1987 and 5 of 1987 respectively on 2-5-1998. These suits were filed for eviction of the revisionist, recovery of rent and damages and mesne profits. After framing of issues and evidence led by the parties, the trial court decreed the suits and passed the decree for eviction, recovery of rent and damages and also mesne profits.
(3.)Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist filed these revisions on various grounds. During course of argument, the learned senior Advocate Sri Ravi Kiran Jain argued only one point that the plaints in suits do not disclose any cause of action. Therefore, the suits were liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial court ought to have dismissed the suits even after the framing of issues at any stage of the trial of the suits. He relied on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in 1986 Supp SCC 315, and submitted that the plaints were cleverly drafted in order to get rid of the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. There was no real cause of actions set out in the plaints. Clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue shall be shown in the plaint.