2010 PLP 1285 (CLC)

SALMAN TALIBUDDIN, J.

1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has not been able to satisfy me as to the relationship if any of the person named in F.I.R. No.203/06 dated 19-9-2006 to the plaintiff or how the investigation that was being conducted by the police pursuant to such F.I.R. had caused any prejudice to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that since the date of the order dated 17-10-2006 all investigation pursuant to F.I.R. dated 19-9-2006 has stopped and further that this suit is entirely misconceived because the name of the plaintiff does not appear in the F.I.R. which only names one Sajjid. In view of the foregoing this application is entirely misconceived. The order dated 17-10-2006 is recalled and CMA No.7801 of 2006 is dismissed.

2. This is defendant's application dated 10-2-2007 under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is hit by section 56(e) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. In support of this application learned counsel has submitted that the F.I.R. registered by the defendant was against one Sajjid and not against the plaintiff and further that the said Sajjid has no relationship at all with the plaintiff nor is the plaintiff named in the F.I.R. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint against the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has not filed a counter affidavit to this application in view of the fact that a copy of this application or even the written statement has not been provided to him by the learned counsel for the defendant. In this regard the learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to the order dated 11-2-2008 and 7-4-2008 and states that despite these orders, the learned counsel for the defendant has not provided him a copy of this application and written statement. I am afraid that this submission of the learned counsel is wholly without merit and cannot be taken into consideration for the failure to file the counter affidavit to this application which has been pending since 10-2-2007 nothing in the orders passed in the suit prevented the learned counsel for the plaintiff from obtaining a copy of this application and of the written statement from the Court's file and it is wholly unreasonable to appear today and submit that he is unable to argue this application on the ground that he has not been provided with a copy of the relevant pleadings. In view of the foregoing and the fact that the criminal proceedings are against one Sajjid who has no relationship with the plaintiff, this application is allowed and the plaint is rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. as no cause of action has been disclosed against the defendant. In so far as the investigation pursuant to the F.I.R. referred to above are concerned, it is pointed out that the order dated 17-10-2006 did not, and indeed could not have had the effect of staying any investigation. Notwithstanding, that order is no more in operation and there is no reason why the investigation should not resume and be concluded in accordance with law. H.B.T./S-39/K Application allowed.