SMT. PATASIBAI & ORS. versus RATANLAL

SMT. PATASIBAI & ORS. versus RATANLAL

On the admitted facts, the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, and therefore, it was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; mere issuance of summons by the Trial Court did not justify continuation of the suit when no triable issue was shown.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Patasibai & Ors.; Respondent: Ratanlal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 January 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision After Appeal From High Court Revision and Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; suit held not maintainable; plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
Legal Topics
Maintainability of Suit, Rejection of Plaint, Consent Decree, Dissolution of Partnership, Cause of Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Patasibai & Ors.

Appellant

Ratanlal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision After Appeal From High Court Revision and Trial Court

  1. 1 Whether the suit is maintainable in law after settlement and consent decree
  2. 2 Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action raising a triable issue
  3. 3 Whether the suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 3A, C.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

On the admitted facts, the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, and therefore, it was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; mere issuance of summons by the Trial Court did not justify continuation of the suit when no triable issue was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; suit held not maintainable; plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

Orders

  • Impugned orders of the Trial Court and High Court holding the suit to be maintainable are set aside.
  • Plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.