High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H 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