Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation

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