SOUMIK SIL versus SUBHAS CHANDRA SIL

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 25-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 821 
SOUMIK SIL 
V. 
SUBHAS CHANDRA SIL 
Civil Appeal No. 4003 of 2014 
MARCH 25, 2014 
. . 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
0. 7, r. 11- Rejection of plaint -- Title suit by mother and 
son for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a 
A 
B 
c 
flat - In a different matrimonial case, High Court ordered the 
mother to vacate the premises in lieu of the amount to be 
paid by her husband- Application by mother in title suit under 0 
0. 7, r. 11 -- Rejected by trial court, allowed by High Court --
Held: High Court has correctly perused the plaint in its entilety 
and after deletion of name of first plaintiff from title suit, held 
that plaint discloses no cause of action, as the very purpose 
of the suit has become infructuous in view of the order passed 
E 
by High Court to hand over possession of the flat in question 
- Thus, provisions of 0. 7,r. 11 (a) are attracted. 
In a title suit for declaration and permanent injunction 
filed by mother and son against the husband, who was 
a joint owner of the flat in question, the mother, plaintiff 
F 
no.1, filed an application under 0.7, r.11 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 for deletion of her name from the 
plaint, in order to give effect to another order of the High 
Court in the matrimonial case by which she was required 
to handover the possession of the suit flat in lieu of the 
G 
money to be paid by her husband. The trial court rejected 
the application, but on a revision petition by the 
defendant, the High Court allowed the application holding 
lthat handing over of possession of the flat was to carry 
821 
H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014} 3 S.C.R. 
A out the order of the High Court in the matrimonial case 
and plaintiff no.2, being the son, had no cause of action 
in the matter. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court perused the plaint in Its 
entirety and after deletion of the name of plaintiff No.1 
from the said title suit, has correctly held that the plaint 
discloses no cause of action, as the very purpose of the 
suit has become infructuous in view of the order passed 
C by the High Court to hand over the possession of the flat 
in question. [para 12] [828-E-G] 
1.2 The plaint discloses no cause of action and 
thereby it attracts the provisions of 0. 7, r.11 (a) of the 
0 Code and, accordingly, the High Court has correctly 
ascertained the position and allowed the said application 
reversing the order of the trial court. There Is no infirmity 
in the order passed by the High Court. [para 13-14] [829-
B-C] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4003 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2011 of the 
High Court of Calcutta in Co. No. 104 of 2011. 
F 
Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh, S. Bhoumick, R.P. Yadav 
G 
for the Appellant. 
C. Mukund, Pankaj Jain, P.V. Saravana Raja, Firdouse 
Qutbwani, Bijoy Kumar Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the 
High Court dated February 10, 2011 whereby the application 
H filed by the respondent herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the 
SOUMIK SIL v. SUBHAS CHANDRA SIL 
823 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') was allowed and 
A 
the plaint was rejected. The High Court set aside the orde( 
passed by the Trial Court refusing such prayer. 
3. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows : 
3.1) A suit was filed for declaration and injunction by the 
B 
appellant along with Smt. Ashima Sen, mother of the present 
appellant. The appellant herein and plaintiff No.1 (the mother) 
filed a suit being Title Suit being No.2430 of 2007 before the 
City Civil Court at Calcutta, and the following reliefs were 
prayed for in the said suit : 
C 
"a) 
For a decree for declaration that the defendant, his 
men and agents have no right to obstruct the user 
of the suit flat by the plaintiffs by any means 
prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs. 
D 
b) 
For a decree permanent injunction restraining the 
defendants, their men, agents and associated from 
causing any obstruction towards free ingress and 
egress of the plaintiffs, for use and occupation of 
E 
the suit flat at 5, Netai Babu Lane, Kolkata- 700 012, 
in any manner prejudicial to the interst of the 
plaintiffs. 
c) 
Temporary injunction with ad-interim order in terms 
of prayer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.