HP High Court Judgment Rejects Vexatious Suit on Grounds of Limitation and Illusory Cause of Action
In a significant ruling, the HP High Court, presided by Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Sharma, delivered a landmark judgment rejecting a vexatious suit on the grounds of limitation and illusory cause of action. The judgment, rendered on July 25, 2023, sheds light on the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for filing suits and emphasizes the need to curb abusive use of the judicial process through crafty pleadings.
The court, in its decision, highlighted the concept of a “cause of action,” which constitutes the foundation for any plaintiff’s claim. The court defined it as “every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment.” The cause of action, according to the court, consists of a bundle of material facts essential for the plaintiff to establish entitlement to the reliefs sought in the suit.
HP High Court stated, “A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court… It must include some act done by the defendant since, in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue.”
The judgment also emphasized the court’s power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject vexatious suits, particularly those with illusory causes of action. The court warned against clever drafting aimed at creating the illusion of a cause of action, stating, “If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing… An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits.”
Furthermore, the court held that if a suit is not filed within the prescribed period, it shall be dismissed, regardless of whether the defense of limitation is raised by the defendant. The court cited Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribe a three-year limitation period for suits seeking declarations or cancellations of instruments or contracts.
In the present case, the court rejected the plaintiff’s suit for declaration due to its vexatious nature and failure to disclose a clear right to sue. The plaintiffs, by cleverly avoiding any challenge to a previous partition deed, attempted to circumvent the limitation period, which would have barred their suit. The court observed, “By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law.”
This precedent-setting judgment serves as a reminder to litigants about the importance of commencing legal actions within the prescribed time limits and refraining from abusive use of the judicial process. It highlights the court’s duty to scrutinize the authenticity of a cause of action and reject frivolous suits at the earliest stage.
Date of Decision: July 25, 2023
M/s Puri Brothers Damtal vs Sukhdev Singh and others
