CPC Case Brief – State of Kerala v. Sudhir Kumar Sharma

Spread the love

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

FACTS:

The Plaintiff has filed for Leave of the court under section 80(2) and a defendant has filed an application for rejection of the plaint. The trial court rejected the application of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Then the defendant appealed to the high court, High court has also upheld the decision of the trial court. But, the High Court noted that application regarding the issuance of notice under sec 80(2) filed by the plaintiff was pending before the Trial Court and yet applications praying for rejection of the plaint by the defendant had been heard and rejected by the Trial Court.  The High court, therefore, presumed that since the leave under section 80(2) was not rejected by the trial court, so it might be granted. Yet no order was passed by the Trial Court, but the High Court presumed that the leave has been granted to the plaintiff, so High court also upheld the decision of the trial court and granted the leave under section 80(2).

ISSUE: Whether there can be any presumption with regard to grant of the application filed under Section 80(2) of the CPC, even if no order was passed on the said application.

RATIO:

  • If an application has been filed under Section 80(2) of the CPC, the Court should consider the facts and take a look at the circumstances in which the leave was sought for filing the suit without issuance of notice under Section 80(1)
  • For the purpose of determining whether such an application should be granted, the court is supposed to give a hearing to both the sides and consider the nature of the suit and urgency of the matter before taking a final decision.
  • By merely filing of an application, it should not be presumed that the application is granted. If such a presumption is accepted, it would mean that the court has not to take any action in pursuance of such an application and if the court has not to take any action, then we fail to understand as to why such an application should be filed.

HOLDING:

  • The court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that mere filing of an application under Section 80(2) of the CPC would not mean that the said application was granted by the trial court. The court should look at the matter, apply its mind and then it should pass the order.
  • The court then has quashed and set aside the judgement of both Trial court and High court and found that there was no urgent and immediate urgency was there, which has constrained the plaintiff from issuing the notice to the defendant.

You can grab notes on other topics of CPC here.

 


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *