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