IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION PETITION N0. ^Ll? OF 2005 BENCH SmGLE UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 IN THE MATTER OF : 1. •:'' 2. ..''''• 1. M/s Instromedix (India) Pvt. Ltd. A-5/A-6, Pragati Chamber, Ranjit Nagar Commercial Complex New Delhi - 110 008 Sh. R.P. Singh Executive Director M/s Instromedix (India) Pvt. Ltd. A-5/A-6, Pragati Chamber, Ranjit Nagar Commercial Complex New Delhi - 110 008 Versus M/s Surgi Aid Pharma Health Care Equipment, Opp. Collectorate, Near Town Clock, Hall No.-I, IInd Floor, G.E.Road, Raipur - 492 OOl(C.G-) Through its Proprietor Shri K.V, Anand S/o Sh. Ashwini Kumar Anand Aged 36 Years Sole Proprietor R/o A-5, Surya Apartments, Katora Talab Raipur (C.G.) Shri K.V. Anand S/o Sh. Ashwini Kumar Anand R/o A-5, Surya Apartments, Katora Talab Raipur (C.G.) Proprietor M/s Surgi Aid Pharma Health Care Equipment, Opp. Collectorate, Near Town Clock, Hall No.-I, IInd Floor, G.E.Road, Raipur - 492 001(C.G.) ... Petitioners Respondent No. 1 Contesting Respondent No. 2 Contesting z- 3, ^ 4., 5. 8, Chairman Cum Managing Director Shri Anil Aggrawal M/s Instromedix (India) Pvt. Ltd. A-5/A-6, Pragati Chamber, Ranjit Nagar Commercial Complex New Delhi - 110 008 Shri. Anil Das Manager M/s Instromedix (India) Pvt. Ltd. R/o S-312, Sector-5 Plot No. 2 Vivekanand Apartment M/s Sahjipal & Associates 14/34 DDA Complex Nangal Raya New Delhi - 110 008 Shri S.K. Sahjipal M/s Sahjipal & Associates 14/34 DDA Complex Nangal Raya New Delhi - 110 008 Shri M.P. Singh S/o Shri Inden'eet Singh Rajput Authorized Representative M/s Instromedix (India) Pvt. Ltd. A-5/A-6, Pragati Chamber, Ranjit Nagar Commercial Complex New Delhi - 110 008 Shantanu Alias Deveshwar Sharma S/o Shri S.K. Sharma C/o Surgical & Associate 148/34 R.B. Center Mangat Ram Complex New Delhi - 110 046 International Cargo Helpers (C.H.A.) Proprietor Sh. Vipul Jain S/o Sh. Jitendra Jain Age 30 Yrs, R/o Pragati Chamber Ranjit Nagar Commercial Complex New Delhi - 110 008 Also at 3506, Sector-3 Gurgaon (Haryana) 11. 12. 13. Shri Rajiv Sharma S/o Sh. Devi Prasad Sharma Shri Nitin Bharal S/o Sh. D.D. Bharal Shri Narendra Singh S/o Sh. Trilok Singh Shri Yash Arora Age 33 Years S/o Sh. Tilak Raj Arora All (No. 10 to 13) Partners of Committed Cargo Care Pvt Ltd, 712, Nagad Diwan Near I.G. Airport New Delhi ... Respondent No. 3 to 13 Proforma Respondents PETITION UNDER SECTION 1^5 OF CPC, 1908 AS BEING FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.05 WHEREBY THE COURT OF >-l4T" ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE RAIPUR HAS DISMISSED PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII, RULE 11 CPC FILED FOR REJECTION OF THE SUIT N0. 46)t/04 WHICH WAS FILED FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES OF RS.2.18 CRORES FIRSTLY ON THE GROUND FOR IMPLICATION IN THE FALSE CASE REGISTERED AS F.I.R. N0. 158/03 UNDER 409 IPC REGISTERED WITH POLICE STATION GOLE BAZAR, RAIPUR 3 ^ (Q A.^. XI-HO-78 g-ccl '•vsWvW, wiS\wi<s, firti'dy'e <^.i^.^0.1^/05 *iWV9l^W sn^STq^F (yitgq-di) W?t200 SII^?TTtR-li<b cian3II^?I<bli<b B^aiaR^feTsn^T 21/10/2005 Shri D.K.Rustagi and applicaats. ihri AU Asgar, counsel for the aiid Vdntilator. appficaats Heard on admission andl Non-applicants No. 1 Rs.1,38,00,000/- (Rupees On^: the applicants and other non-j piuchase and sale of inedical| Indian Agent for Birds Pi|c inanufacturing coinpaay of Executive Director. Non-i ventilator froin time to tiine 28/09/2002. They placed foi4- for seventeen Ventilators. Sol the ventilators have been recey 2,. but High Seas sale agreeinetit clear the goods finin custoins applicauts No. 1 aad 2. Noa-j order dated 28/09/2002 Crore Twelve Lakhs Twenty 28/09/2002, but despite encashed nop the Ventilatorsl applfcants No. land2. On applicants No. 3 to 13 non-i <hl^fd4)-( 11tdT*ffet<a 'iRt'l'dl't ^SI^ISIT^?! M. (C.)P. No.888/2005. 2 ffled a suit for recoveiy of Crore Thirty Eight Lakhs) agauist ipplicants averring that tfaey deal ia equipinents. AppUcaat No.l is aa [oducts Corporation which is a having applicant No.2 its pficaats No. 1 aad 2 to purchase ^laced orders from 2S10210,002 to orders. The last order was placed far as ofher orders are concemed, red by fhe non-appUcauts No. 1 aad and other docuinents i-equired to bave not been renutted to the non- •^ppUcauts Np. 1 and 2 against their Rs.1,12,20,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) by a cheque dated neither fhe cheque has been have been suppUed to the non- appUcants aad ofher non- a|)plicant No.7 lodged a fatse^ report reiiiltted thlit belkalfoffhe XI-HO-78 \j-cc|<-A|i4ltt'y,i?tTltt*i<»,R«i'<iy'< *ii*iriia»w<y SIT^?Tl^? (lyi^<l<Ei) W1200 W^STOTR*li* praisii^sTH'^ra? ^aiw^riScTan^T - z <niofn<tli *ti*ic>T^fls'd '(IUI'KK d»3Tf^*I3II^?I agauist non-applicaats No. 1 a^id 2 linder Section 409 ofthe I.P.C. On 13/09/2003 afiter invest^ajioa, Police closed the case. A false report was also jpubUshed in the newspaper which damaged the reputation of nt>n-appUcants No. 1 aiid 2. Non- appUcauts No. 1 and 2 also applicaats aad non-appUcautj explained in their plaint how the i No.'3 to 13 are related. Non- appUcauts No. 1 and 2 also p^eaded fhat causes of action arose on 28/02/2002, 28/06/2002, [16/07/2002 and 28/09/2002 when i . . they placed orders for m.edical|equipinent, on 28/09/2002 when it remitted Rs. 1,12,20,000/ - ^y cheque. On 11/08/ 2003 when a false case has been got regis ered agam.st thein aad news have been flashed in local news pajpers. Non-applicauts No. 1 aad 2 further pleaded fhat they su^Fered loss of Rs.23,00,000/- due to iminovabflity of capital, Rs.l,0p,00,000/- for lodging a false first iuformation report, Rs.64,00,(}00/- as a result of pubUcation of false accusation in news]|>aper and Rs.27,00,000/- due to publicatiou of the case registe They calculated total loss of suit claiming Rs. 1,38,00,000 t-ed under Section 409 of the I.P.C. ^s.2,18,00,000/-, but preferred the \f - only aad paying court fees thereon, keepiag the reiaainui^ claun ia abeyaiice. Applicants who are defeijidauts No. 1 aad S in fhe suit filed an application uiider Order VII], Rule 11 ofthsC.P.C., for rejection of fhe plamt unveiUng various|factors ia support of fheir defence, _Cik <-, XI-HC-78 \Smi ^MIri^l, tPTn'<1<ls, Rcl'il<(-l^! «ii*tCTia»*n^ ^200 gn^TtRlft'iiW yasiSf^W^S 3T(^?TWV (yii^q^) s^nW^ftasn^?! <t)i<)fo>41-i *ii*)c>T^"(s'<l •(lui'i^it i&si^ffa^n chatlenged the causes of acticja as also on the basis of provisions ofOrder 2, Rule 2 ofthe C.P.O, , raised the issue of jmis-joinder of causes of aetion and also r^dsed fhe dispute of coiut fee aad jurisdiction. Leamed trial Court held|fbat all the grounds raised by the applicaats ia the appUcation |have also been raised ua written stateiueat, therefore, those obj^ctions can be resolved by fi~amin| appropriate issues aad at this [juucture, the objections caanot be tried aad disposed of iu abs dismissed the appUcation. ince of evidence and accordiugly Order 7, Rule 11 of tfae I.P.C. reads as below: "11. Rejection of ^fcdnt.- The plaint shall be rejected in thefollow\ (a) where it does no (b) where ihe relief ng cases ;- disdose d cause ofaction; "laimed is undervalued, and. the plainttff, on l^efng required by the Courf to correct the vahiation within a time to 1 by the Courf,fw1^ to do so; (c) where the reUef but the plaini dcdrrwd is property vahied, is retumed upon paper insuffidently sta\nped, and the jslaintiS XI-HC-78 ^•OTl'-All^llri^, u-(Ttx-i<is, Rrti'dgx HWWWW SIT^ST iraq? (yifgq.Ei) ^200 an^OTWK'u'v aan3ii^?idi*ii<i' g^TTW^lftcT SK^Sf ^- cbl«fd<i1'f*fl4dl'^ffe'cl xRitdt ^ari^TSll^T Co^trt, being required\ requisite stcanjf fixed by the (d) zuhere ihe suit fhe plaint to be (e) where it is notff (f) where the p?4 provisions ofRs\ (Provided that the correction ofthe^ requisite sicanp-pa^ unless the Caurt, f^ satisfied fhat fhe p^ cause ofan exceptid^ valuation or supply^ czs the case may be\ Court and fhat reju^ cattse grave irgustic^ tffled by the Caurt to supply ihe 1-paper ivithin a tirae to be ^rt, fcdls to do so; \fppears from. the statement in parred by any lavj: in-duplicafe; [intiff' fails to comply with ^fe 9:) \he timefbced by fhe Caurlfor valvation or supplying of the per shdll not be extended ^r reasons to be recorded, is Vfiintiff ivas prevented by any ^na? naturefrom correcting the the requisife stamp-pdper, within the time fixed by the \al to exterid such time would to ths plcardiff.j' •xceptidi-tal naturefri vplyifpg Leamed counsel for the ia ai^uments i.e., the suit action and non-pa5rment of pro ^pplicants only raised two groiuids froin inis-joinder of causes of iter court fee. suuers ^^ XI-HC-78 vj-pd ^i^lri-y, t»TTI1ti<i<»,Rwi'dyx HWril^m^ 3TT^9I tRfEP (yii^eJS) W1200 airtsTwR'ii'b aansn^?[(h*fi<h B^TrsR^ifeTan^n -•3 - tbl«frid1-1*fl*1ri)*tfel<3'<l"ltSl'< ^3T^T3II^?T FTOIII the plam.t avermedf capital, for lodging false repo]|t plaintiflFs on accouiit of publicjation local newspapers specific ple4ding have been niade. Froin fhe ars do not waat to say that fhe action, but fheir conteD.tions joiader of causes of actiou. as cause of action is concemedl avennent it can be established cause of action, hence ia the| suffer froin the defect that it dol t, it is clear fhat for imiiiovabilily of t aad regardirig loss caused to the of defamatoiy unputations ia ding to support causes of action Uinent it is clear that ttie applicants iuit suffers fioin lack of causes of ls that the suit suffers froin inis- VII Rule 11 ofthe C.P.C., so far is oidy applicable iffroni the plaint [that the plaint does not disclose the iustant case, the plairit does not ;s not disclose fhe cause ofaction. Oifder So far payment of court| fhat non-applicants No. 1 an^ court fee on Rs.1,38,00,000/- but only dispute is that in calculated the damage to fhe the suit for recoveiy pf Rs. 1,3 claiin in abeyance which is noi the C.P.C., only appUes ifthei beiag required by the Court, to do so. Not only the suit jurisdiction • and relief Rs.l,: fee is concemed, it isnot disputed 2 in their suit have not paid the which is the valuation of fhe suit, ^jlaint non-appUcaats No. 1 aad 2 fune of Rs.2,18,00,000/-,but filed !|S,00,000/- aad kept the remnining pemiissible. QrderVII, Rule 11 of •Uef clauned is under value and on tc| correct fhe valuation plauitiffs fail h^s been valued for the purpose of ^8,00,000/- but also the required XI-HC-78 / ; y-oii •^lizilri^l, u-a1<M<i<»,firti'<iy'< *lllCTl^1TT^ an^STq^p (yilgq.s) W^200 sirtsTwR'ii* aairsn^^isR^to ?^IT8R^fl?T SII^CT -&- <l>l^lFd<i1'f*fl*fd)"^'l«'<3xluitSK ^art^rsirtsT court fee has been paid. Ther< fhe defect regarding valuation TaMag iato consideratio different dates on which caus raised by the appUcaats as to issues regarding lais-joinder detenuined at the early stage ; the C.P.C. The objection re appUcants does not require axi of law requires to be decidei fraTnmg preliminary issue. [fore, the plaint does not suffer froia |>r payment of court fee. » ^i fhe pardes impleaded in the suit ;s of action arose aud the objectton [mis-joinder, it is necessary that fhe of causes of action shoDld be ^LS is fhe object of Order II Rule 7 of jgaiduig mis'-joinder raised by fhe ^ evidence, fherefore, it beiag issue |1 at the early stage of the suit by aitun Non-appUcants No. 1 coiupensation to the tune of I^ recoveiy of Rs.1,38,00,000/- abeyaace. Whether for reinai(l preferred is a inatter of law w] therefore, whefher keepiag ^ instant sTiit for rest of the amd determined in accordaace wifb C.P.C, at early stage of fh| coinplications dunng fhe trial. and 2 although calculated the s.2,18,00,000/-, but filed a suit for and kept fhe reiiiamiug claun ia ung amount separate claim. can be lich does not require any evidence, •eiiiauung clami in abeyaitce the |unt caa be proceeded with caa be the provisions of Order II of the avoid farther le suit so as to J^^ XI-HC-78 ytB|'^ll<llri4,(»'nl'«<i<?,Rni'<i3'< *ll*loi ^TT^ an^ST lra;P (yi(g6i<s) W^ 200 <-«niaq>Tfeira? gfanan^CTa'^to S!RIT8R^fS(T9II^?r -I - Froin the above discusi unpugned order does not calt under its revisional jurisdictfon, observations fh.e revision is disjnissed In fhe l^ht of above o Certified copy as p *l<)(rt41-1 HWrtl'it'fs'A iFflt^i't ipaif^Tsil^a ion, I am of the opuuon that the for aay interference by fhls Court ion, therefore, with the aforesaid der, M.(C.)P.No.888/2005 for ad- iQterim order aad I.A.No.l74p/2005 for ui^ent hearing staad disposed of. )dr rules. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge OSO,SZlSW3/Sd/dS