GOPAL CHANDRA KAR S/O LATE BISWANATH KAR Vs. ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition challenge has been made to the order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure -1) passed by the 1 st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit (M.S.) No.65/113 of 2010/2009 rejecting petitioners' application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.

(2.) THE petitioners are the defendants in C.S. (M.S.) No.65/113 of 2010/2009 (M.S.) in which a petition for rejection of plaint had been filed by the petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d), CPC.The learned 1 st Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) rejected the said application vide order dated 31.08.2010 on the ground that the plaint does disclose cause of action and the suit appears not to be barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this civil revision petition.

(3.) MR . R.C. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 is an unreasoned, nonspeaking and cryptic order which does not disclose the factual basis for filing the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d), C.P.C. The said order does not contain the various grounds of challenge advanced in the petition filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) and also the averments made in the plaint claiming that the plaint does disclose cause of action and the suit is not barred by limitation. Though the petitioners had relied upon various judicial pronouncements along with written statements, the same were not taken into consideration by the learned 1 st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. The learned Court below has not only exercised the jurisdiction with material irregularities but also disposed of the application of the petitioners by exercising the jurisdiction in most illegal, arbitrary and high handed manner. In absence of the essential factual discussion and reasons, the impugned order has become totally unsustainable on account of illegal exercise of jurisdiction and as such the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and others, 2003 11 SCC 519 and The State of Punjab vs. Bhag Singh, 2004 1 SCC 547.