IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :        09-01-2015

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

C.R.P (PD).No.2016 of 2013 
and M.P.No.1 of 2013

M.Ramachandran  						............ Petitioner
vs

R.Srinivasan						        .......... Respondent 

	Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside the order, dated 30.01.2013 made in I.A.Sr.No.481 of 2013 in O.S.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram.

		For Petitioner 		: Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan
						  for Mr.D.Murthy

		For Respondent 		: Mr.S.Gopinathan
ORDER

Challenging the order, dated 30.01.2013 passed in an unnumbered Interlocutory Application in I.A.Sr.No.481 of 2013 in the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram, this Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit, wherein the respondent / plaintiff had sought a Judgment and Decree in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents, etc from in any way carrying out any quarry activities or any crushing business, without getting Government License in the land in S.No.668/1, morefully described in the plaint A schedule property and for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for lien over the movables of plaint B schedule mentioned property, which were stored in the plaint A schedule property.

3. In the plaint, the respondent / plaintiff has stated the cause of action for filing the suit, that arose on 10.04.2002, the date on which a tripartite agreement was entered into between the plaintiff, defendant and the District Collector, Kanchipuram on 14.10.2011, the date of supplemental deed executed for the period from 16.04.2008 to 13.09.2012. It is further submitted by the respondent plaintiff that the tripartite agreement is not in force, as per the agreement, the lease period is over and the informations obtained from Block Development Office, Kanchipuram and from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board shows that the defendant is not holding licence for quarrying activities or any crushing business, on the date of the suit, however, without obtaining license from the Government, he is attempting to continue the quarry activities in the respondent's / plaintiff's land. In the suit, the aforesaid suit, the aforesaid unnumbered Interlocutory Application was filed, seeking an order to reject the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (e) of CPC read with Section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act.

4. As per Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC, a plaint could not be rejected, if it does not disclose a cause of action. In the instant case, admittedly, the respondent / plaintiff is the owner of the land and the petitioner / defendant entered into an agreement for crushing operation and the term is also over. On the facts and circumstances, a perusal of the plaint would clearly shows that the plaint cannot be rejected, on the ground that there is no cause of action raised by the respondent / plaintiff. However, as there is cause of action raised, the suit is legally maintainable, hence, the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 24 (h) of Specific Relief Act. Under the said provision of law. If the suit appears from the statement in the plaint, to be barred by any law, that has to be rejected, under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC read with Section 24 (h) of Specific Relief Act, otherwise, issues involved in the suits should be decided by the trial court based on the evidence, according to law and at the threshold, the plaint could not be rejected.

6. This Court in Aditya Masala Nani Agro Foods (P) Ltd., v. M.Selvaraj, reported in (2007) 1 MLJ 611, referring various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, has held that an industrial activity, licensed by necessary authorities was brought to a grinding halt by an ad-interim injunction. While granting ad-interim injunction, the trial court has not given any reason only and by 'ipsi dixit', granted the order contrary to Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Hence it was held that power under Article 227 could be exercised by this Court, to prevent abuse of process of law and Court, which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

7. In Krishnamurty v. Sokath Products Private Limited, reported in 1996 (I) MLJ 218, this Court has held as follows :

"32. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act deals with cases where an injunction cannot be granted Sec. 41 (e) of the Act says that injunction cannot be granted to prevent breach of a contract, the performance of which cannot be specifically enforced. Sec. 14 of the said Act deals with cases where specific performance cannot be granted. Section 14 (d) of the Act deals with contracts the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the Court cannot supervise. A reading of Ex.P.28 will show that the petitioner herein is bound to give assistance to the respondents (plaintiffs) for the performance of excavating the granites from the property. The reason described in that clause is, that excavating minor mineral is governed by Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder Sec. 4 of the said Act says that 'No person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operation in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder. Sec. 14 of the Act says that 'The provisions of Sec.5 to 13 (inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals.' Therefore, the Act makes it clear that Sec.4 applies to minor minerals. Under Sec.15 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to make Rules in respect of minor minerals."

8. However, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the relief sought for in the suit is for restraining the petitioner / defendant, by an order of permanent injunction, from any way carrying out any quarry activities or any crushing business, without getting Government license. The petitioner / defendant cannot raise a plea that even without getting license from the competent authority, he would be entitled to run the industry in the land belongs to the respondent / plaintiff, after the expiry of the term of lease period.

9. It is pertinent to note that the respondent / plaintiff has raised legal cause of action to maintain the suit. It cannot be said that the relief sought for in the plaint is not legally sustainable, on the ground of any statutory bar for seeking the relief. On the other hand, the revision petitioner is not entitled to raise a plea that he would run the quarry activities, without license, after the expiry of the lease period.

10. On a perusal of the grounds raised by the petitioner / defendant, it is crystal clear that there is no scope to hold that the plaint has to be construed that it was filed without legal cause of action or barred by any law. Considering the same, the trial court has not even numbered the aforesaid Interlocutory Application. Having gone through the grounds raised and the averments made by the revision petitioner / defendant, this Court is of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below in rejecting the plaint, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

11. Filing this type of petition cannot be encouraged by the Courts, as it would cause only delay, ultimately that would be an abuse of process of law and the Court. It cannot be disputed that the remedy available to the defendant is to face the trial and the Court below has to dispose the same, according to law, within a time frame.

12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The Court below is directed to dispose the suit, according to law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

09-01-2015 Index : Yes Internet : Yes tsvn To The Principal District Munsif Kancipuram.

S.TAMILVANAN, J tsvn Order in C.R.P (PD).No.2016 of 2013 09-01-2015