MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Rejects Suit as Illusory and Barred by Limitation due to Clever Drafting

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Subject: Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule XI - Illusory cause of action - Vexatious - Barred by limitation - Partition deed - Clever drafting - Abuse of process of court

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India rejected a civil suit, ruling it to be illusory, vexatious, and barred by limitation. The Court found that the suit was cleverly drafted to circumvent the law and abuse the process of the court.

The case, titled Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors., involved a dispute over a partition deed dated March 11, 1953. The plaintiffs alleged an error in the partition deed, specifically regarding the mention of a particular survey number. However, the plaintiffs deliberately omitted seeking any relief related to the partition deed itself.

The defendants, original defendant Nos. 9 and 10, filed an application under Order VII Rule XI of the Civil Procedure Code seeking the rejection of the plaint. They argued that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a clear right to sue. The Trial Court dismissed the application, and the High Court affirmed the decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

After a careful examination of the plaint and considering the relevant legal principles, the Supreme Court held that the plaint should have been rejected. The Court found that the suit was illusory, as it was based on the premise of an error in the partition deed, yet relief regarding the partition deed itself was intentionally omitted. By clever drafting, the plaintiffs attempted to maintain the suit while evading the provisions of the Limitation Act.

The Court emphasized the need to examine the averments in the plaint and the real cause of action, rather than being misled by clever drafting. It referred to previous judgments, including T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Raj Narain Sarin v. Laxmi Devi and Ors., which highlighted the importance of nipping in the bud any illusory cause of action and ending bogus litigation at the earliest stage.

Citing the power under Order VII Rule XI of the Civil Procedure Code, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaint was vexatious, illusory, and barred by limitation. It quashed and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, allowing the application to reject the plaint and ordering the rejection of the civil suit. No costs were awarded.

Venkatanna & Anr. v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.

Latest Legal News