The High Court disposes of the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to reject the plaint. The court directs the trial court to proceed with the trial since the plaintiff must take final positions on defenses raised in the written statement.
No costs. Trial court directed to take up the matter and dispose of same expeditiously. M.C.P. closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
Civil Revision Petition.No.723 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.5617 of 2023
Arunakumari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Premiya
2.Ramasamy 3.Saravanaprakash
4.Palaniammal ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.128 of 2020 dated 16.11.2022 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the dismissal of
I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.128 of 2020, dated 16.11.2022 on the file of the
learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, filed under Order 7 Rule 11
and Section 151 of C.P.C.
1/9
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
2/9
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
barred by limitation so that the judicial time is not wasted. The questions raised by the petitioner/defendant requires through trial after framing appropriate issues before the Trial Court.
Venkatanna & another v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors ., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 372 , as under:-
"5.1 In the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) in paragraph 5 while considering the provision of Order VII Rule XI, this Court has observed as under: -
“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal — reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.”
3/9
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
5.2 In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed and held as under:
“11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].)”
5.3 In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174, this Court observed and held as under:
“7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire
4/9
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.”
5.4 In the case of Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364, this Court observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit
5/9
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
is barred by law of limitation. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Raj Narain Sarin (supra).
7.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) is concerned, again there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down by this Court that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint only are required to be considered and not the averments in the written statement. However, on considering the averments in the plaint as they are, we are of the opinion that the plaint is ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting."
disposed of at this stage itself, directing the petitioner to take all possible defense which are raised in the written statement. The Trial Court is directed to take up this matter and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.06.2023
jai
Index:Yes/No
6/9
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
Speaking Order: Yes/No
7/9
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
To
The Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.
8/9
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
Dr . D. NAGARJUN, J. jai
C.R.P.No.723 of 2023
21.06.2023
9/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint in the suit for partition is vexatious and barred by limitation requiring rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Whether the trial court erred in not accepting the arguments for rejection of plaint based on the written statement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramisetty Venkatanna & another v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.Explained¶28
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 372
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. SatyapalExplained¶31
(1977) 4 SCC 467 · Who else cites this
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity Commr.Explained¶35
(2004) 3 SCC 137 · Who else cites this
ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate TribunalExplained¶36
(1998) 2 SCC 70 · Who else cites this
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed JalalExplained¶37
(2017) 13 SCC 174 · Who else cites this
Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal KalanExplained¶43
(1986) 4 SCC 364 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arunakumari
Premiya
Ramasamy
Saravanaprakash
Palaniammal
D. NARASIMHA
S. R. AVANISHKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
D. NARASIMHA and S. R. AVANISHKA
Parties & counsel
