-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2009 Goa Industrial Development Corporation, An undertaking of the Government of Goa, Having office at 13-A-2, E.D.C., Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa, 403 001. Represented by its Dr. General Manager (Adm.) Mr. William Borges, major of age, having office at Patto, Plaza, Panaji, Goa. …... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Mr. Rohit Sanghvi, son of late Mr. Maneklal M. Sanghvi, aged 60 years, married, consultant, Residing at D-6, Beach House, CHS Ltd., Gandhigram Road, Juhu, Mumbai, 400 049. 2. Mr. Vikram S. Sangvi, Aged 39 years, businessman, carrying on business at Mehta Industrial Estate, 2nd Floor, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai. 3. Mr. Jagdish Bhanushali, Aged 39 years, businessman, Trading and carrying on businessman As a sole Proprietor, in the name and style of M/s. Varama Handling Agencies, Residing at G-1, Heera Darpan, Adarsh Nagar, Airport Road, Chicalim, Goa, 403 711. .….. Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM: A. H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 7 th October, 2009. -2- JUDGMENT 1. This Court had issued a notice for final disposal and had granted ad-interim stay of further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit no. 62/08/A. 2. Office report indicates that notice of writ and stay of proceedings is issued. However, the respondents have not appeared though served. 3. The Petition, therefore, had come up for final disposal. 4. Present Petitioner is a defendant in the Regular Civil Suit no. 62/08/A. It is a suit for perpetual injunction what is prayed against the defendant no.3 seeking restraint against him that he shall not alienate or create any third party interest in the suit shed in any manner. 5. Petitioner herein, who is the defendant no.1, has filed application under Rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C. Objection as to maintainability of suit is raised, contents whereof could better be read by quoting as follows : “... 2. The plaintiff has neither complied with the mandatory requirement as required under Section 52A of the said act nor does the plaint disclose and / or indicate of the Plaintiff having complied with the mandatory requirement of section 52A of the said act.” -3- (Quoted from page 99 of the application under Rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C.) 6. The application was heard by the learned Trial Court and rejected the same. The Order of rejection is brief and instead of describing, it would be better to quote it. “ORDER I have perused the written arguments filed and the reply of the plaintiff as well as the pleading in the plaint. There is no whisper in the plaint as to the giving or not giving of the notice to Defendant as per Sec 52A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 O.7 Rule 11 CPC would apply if the suit is barred by any law based on the statements made in the plaint. It is pertinent to note that the Defendant no.1 by the present application is challenging the suit on the ground that it is not maintainable as no notice under Sec 52A of the said Act was given. Besides it is stated in this application in Para 2 that the suit is misconceived in law and facts as against Defendant no.1 which can be decided on merits of the matter. Hence for the reasons stated hereinabove I pass the following order. ORDER The application u/O7 Rule 11 CPC shall stand dismissed. Sd/- CJSD, Vasco 26/2/09” (Quoted from page 102 of the compilation) -4- 7. It is seen from the perusal of above quoted portion that barring the underlined sentence, the Order does not contain any reason whatsoever. 8. It is further seen that depending on the facts of the case, the reasons could be very brief. This Court is however unable to notice any reason whatsoever in the impugned Order. 9. Only word “misconceived” which is appearing in the impugned Order is in the nature of adjective. It does not disclose any objective ground as to why, according to the learned Trial Court, the application is without any basis and foundation. 10. The manner in which an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C. is to be decided by comparing the grounds raised, if any, with the Clauses of Rule 11, and finding out whether the application fits into objection, and thereafter by finding out whether the ground of objection is sustained from plain reading of the plaint. 11. The learned Trial Judge seems to have been morally convinced for what he has done. The record, however, does not support what has been done. 12. In this situation, impugned Order deserves to be set aside on the -5- ground that the Order does not disclose the reasons for satisfaction of the Trial Court as to why the application under Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. was found to be misconceived. 13. On this sole ground, Civil Revision Application succeeds and impugned Order is set aside. 14. Rule is made absolute in above terms with further directions that the learned Trial Court shall hear and decide the application at Exhibit D-39, according to law and on its own merits. A. H. JOSHI, J. arp/*