Suit: Recovery of insured amount of Rs. 80000/- alongwith interest @12% P/A.

Date of Suit file: 20.12.2021.

After giving notice the opposing party appeared through Adv. Anuj Kapoor and stated that the suit
is not maintainable. The defendant's counsel was also directed to file a written statement in this
regard. The Written statement was filed on 27.07.2022, in which it is mentioned that:

That the Hon'ble Court lacks jurisdiction to attempt and decide the legal preliminary problem
contained in the written statement about the suit's maintainability, which is reproduced as follows:

"Whether the suit of the plaintiff in the present form is not maintainable if so what be its effect on
the suit?

A brief sketch of the plaint's suit to gain relief:

The plaintiff used a loan programme for the poor to acquire a buffalo. After purchasing a buffalo and
obtaining a loan policy, the plaintiff insured the animal with the defendant under policy No. OG-20-
1204-50020000-2457, and the value of Rs 80 000 was insured from November 8, 2020 to November
7, 2021. However, the buffalo died on June 14, 2020, about 5:00 PM. The complainant obtained a
post-mortem examination of the buffalo on August 15, 2020, from veterinary assistant Surgeon RCD
Mendhar. After the death of the animal, the plaintiff addressed the defendant company and
requested the insurance money. Finally, a request is submitted for a decree of recovery of an insured
amount. Following careful consideration of both parties' arguments, the following judicious thought
emerged:

According to Order II CPC, the plaint simpliciter appears to be a mere complaint rather than a civil
suit involving any claim to property or any other civil right. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC shall also be
applicable in this case. The cause of action is also not stated explicitly in the case.

Rejection of plaint:

It does not disclose a cause of action and the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to
rectify the valuation within a time frame set by the court. The plaint thus warrants dismissal when,
under O.7 R.11(a) CPC, the cause of action is not disclosed, or when, under O.7 R.11(d) CPC, the suit
appears to be forbidden by any law based on the statement in the plaint. Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure elaborates on the rejection of plaints in certain instances, according to the
law. It has specified the grounds on which the plaints are dismissed by the courts. One of them fails
to state the plaintiff's cause of action against the respondent. For example Calcutta High Court,
Selina Sheehan Vs Hafez Mohammed Fate Nashib