Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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