M/S.Mpi Exports Private Ltd., v. M/S.Ssa Pack
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P.(PD)No.3883 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.19787 of 2016 M/S.MPI Exports Private Limited represented by its Director K.K.Sood 67, Developed Plots (south phase) Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai-600 058.
.. Petitioner Vs.
M/S.SSA PACK represented by its Partner V.N.Lakshmanan DP 68/72 South phase, Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai-600 058.
.. Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 01.11.2016 made in I.A.No.906 of 2016 in O.A.No.460 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Harikrishnan For Respondent : Private notice served No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 01.11.2016 made in I.A.No.906 of 2016 in O.A.No.460 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.460 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with and forcefully evicting the respondent from his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except under due process of law. The petitioner filed I.A.No.906 of 2016 for rejection of the plaint stating that the respondent is only a licensee and there is no landlordtenant relationship. In view of the same, no cause of action arose for filing the suit and prayed for rejection of the plaint.
3. The respondent filed counter affidavit and opposed the said application.
4. The learned Judge considering the averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and materials available on record, dismissed the application holding that the issue as to whether the relationship between the petitioner and respondent is the landlordtenant or licensor-licensee can be decided only after considering the evidence let in by the parties at the time of trial. The learned Judge also held that even though license period has been expired as alleged by the petitioner, the cause of action has arisen, when there were exchange of notices. The learned Judge further held that whether the respondent is having valid license or authorisation from the Government to conduct the business and other irregularities as to running the business can not be decided in the present suit.
5. Against the order of dismissal dated 01.11.2016 made in I.A.No.906 of 2016, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, the respondent is a licensee under the
petitioner. The suit is for permanent injunction on the ground that the petitioner is trying to interfere with the possession of the respondent. In the plaint for the relief sought for, the respondent has stated how the cause of action has arisen. Whether the same is correct or not can be decided only after considering the evidence let in by the parties.
8. It is well settled that while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint, only the averments in the plaint are necessary. The contention of the petitioner in the written statement and documents relied on by the petitioner are not relevant at this stage.
9. In view of the above, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reasons. There is no irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 01.11.2016.
10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.06.2017 Index : Yes/No kj V.M.VELUMANI, J.
kj To The District Munsif Court, Ambattur.
C.R.P.(PD)No.3883 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.19787 of 2016 22.06.2017