Plaint Has To Be Rejected If Relief Claimed In It Cannot Be Granted Under Law

Name of the Case

Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan

Key Takeaways

• A partnership firm was still running even after the death of the three founding partners and relief was sought from the firm.
• The Court held that the court hearing the case has the power to dismiss a plaint if it is cleverly drafted and has no merit in it.
• The Court is empowered to ensure that the proceedings are not unnecessarily prolonged if the cause of action is not mentioned.

Background

• Plaintiffs filed a civil suit in the Calcutta High Court, seeking different reliefs related to the assets and properties of the firm "Soorajmull Nagarmull."
• Despite the death of the three founding partners of the partnership firm, through whom the plaintiffs were claiming, the defendants continued the partnership firm's activity.

Contentions of the Prosecution

• The defendants filed an application to have the plaint dismissed on the grounds that it did not disclose any cause of action and that the relief sought in the plaint could not be given.
• The appellant argued that the Division Bench nearly conducted a mini-trial in the impugned judgement and order while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
• The respondents argued that if the reliefs sought in the plaint cannot be granted, then the Court's only option is to dismiss the plaint.

Court’s Observation

• A Court must reject a plaint if it deems that none of the reliefs requested in it can be granted to the plaintiff under the law, in which case the action must be terminated to avoid wasting more judicial time.
• The basic purpose of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is that if a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the Court will not allow the plaintiff to prolong the proceedings needlessly.
• The bench cited the decisions in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, noting that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, and meaningful reading of the pleadings reveals that they are manifestly vexatious and meritless, the Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
• The reliefs requested in the plaint are not available.
• The conditions outlined in Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must be scrupulously followed.

Do you think plaintiffs intentionally file meritless clever plaints? Do you agree that the case should not be entertained even if the relief sought is not wrong? Tell us in the comments section below!