Curbing frivolous and vexatious cases
Narayanan
(Querist) 14 April 2012
This query is : Resolved
I have gone through a judgment of Supreme Court about Clever drafting (Head Note : Duties of the court in curbing frivolous and vexatious cases) the text says “, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Chapter X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot-down at the earliest stage.”
1. In my case Plaintiff on being acquittal from a criminal proceeding instituted by the defendant and on alleged order obtained from the Revenue Officer has filed present money suit for damages. The plaint has been cleverly drafted and is virtually claiming property from the defendant in the guise of money suit. The prayer is only related to damages in terms of money Rs. 12,500/-and cause of action shown is the date of acquittal and an order of Revenue Officer.(The defendant ascertained no such order was passed) The plaint is also trying to bring out the possible contentions that would be raised by this defendant in other civil case pending between the defendant and the relative of the plaintiff(in that case defendant refused the title of Plaintiff's relative). Plaint was filed along with 1 doc. that is acquittal order of criminal proceeding and accordingly defendant filed the w/s. Later at the stage of evidence Plaintiff files application to receive documents which was allowed inspite of strong objection of the Def. Now the case is posted for Plaintiff evidence and Plaintiff is intending to mark those documents (w/o amending the plaint) which lead to claim of property. But the documents are not yet all related to present suit(prayer).
Now my question is with reference to the above judgment can defendant file application under sec. 94(e) and 151 to dismiss the suit without conducting the trail as the plaintiff has camouflaged the cause of action and avoiding a declaratory suit to save stamp duty OR should def. let the plaintiff to complete the evidence with marking the documents. Please suggest. (Pls. Note : The Defendant shall be definitely prejudiced if those unrelated documents are marked)
ajay sethi
(Expert) 14 April 2012
isnce issues have been framed in the case and the case is posted for evidence of plaintiff let the trial take place . the court may not consider your application for dismissal of suit as isses havve already been frmaed
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 April 2012
The case law you are recalling is about ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC.
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
1[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
3[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9];
2[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]
SO IF ANY OF THE CONDITIONS STATED ABOVE IS SATISFIED YOU CAN ,in my opinion still move the application to reject the plaint.No matter even if issues are framed.
In following case law all relevant case law about rejection of plaint under o 7 rule 11 are dealt with.
Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007
Author: P Sathasivam
Bench: T Chatterjee, P Sathasivam
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4626 of 2007
you may get it and others on indiakanoon.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 15 April 2012
I do agree with the advice of Prabhakar Singh ji.
Narayanan
(Querist) 17 April 2012
Thank you Prabhakar Sir, further while filing the application should defendant quote the relevant judgments in supporting affidavit. Pls suggest
