THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 771 OF 2014 Dated:17-10-2014
Between
Sunil Srivasthava ... PETITIONER AND ION Exchange (India) Ltd., (A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) with its Regd. Office at Post Box No.6273, Tiecicon House, Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400011, with Office at H.No.6-3-347/9, Plot No.134, 4th Floor, Riviera Apts, Dwarakapuri Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-500082, rep., by its Manager HR – Mr. K. Ravi Chandra, S/o. K. Nagabushana Rao, aged about 39 years and another .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 771 OF 2014 ORDER:
The 1st respondent filed O.S No. 610 of 2010 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,94,851/- referable to the business transactions. After receipt of the summons in the suit, the petitioner filed I.A No.3553 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, with a prayer to reject the plaint insofar as it concerns him. It was pleaded that except that a vague mention is made in para F of the plaint, not a single fact is mentioned in the paragraphs pertaining to cause of action or at any other important places and that the suit against him is bereft of cause of action. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 31-07-2013. Hence, the revision.
Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondents, they did not enter appearance.
The 1st respondent no doubt claimed the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.50,94,851/- against both the defendants i.e., the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. However, neither in the body of the plaint nor in the paragraph pertaining to the cause of action, it was mentioned that the petitioner is in any way liable to pay the amount. For instance, in para H, it was pleaded that the legal notice for recovery of the said amount was issued to the 2nd respondent i.e., the 1st defendant alone. The paragraph pertaining to the cause of action reads:
“Cause of Action: The cause of action to file the above suit arose, initially on 21-06-2007, and the defendant was appointed as a Dealer for Southern Region; when a letter of authorization was issued to the Defendant No.1 to supply/promote Indion/Indflog range of products for 21 listed companies on 25-08-2008 when plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the amount of Rs.50,94,851/- towards losses and damages suffered by the Plaintiff, on account of the supply of products to the customers of Northern Region, without authorization, on 6-9-2008 when the Defendant No.2 replied denying his liability on 7-4-2009 when Legal notice was issued to the defendant terminating his Dealership and demanding for payment of arrears; on 17- 04-2009 when an interim reply was given by the defendant through his counsel on 3-7-2009 when a 2nd legal notice was issued to the defendant calling upon to settle the amount of Rs.50,94,851/-, and such other occasions when the defendants failed to make payment.”
Nowhere, it is mentioned that the 1st respondent has any cause of action vis-à-vis the petitioner.
Hence, the C.R.P is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. I.A No. 3553 of 2011 stands allowed and the plaint insofar as it concerns the petitioner i.e., the 2nd defendant shall stand rejected.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 17-10-2014 ks