Delhi High Court
Rajan Mehra vs Smt Geetanjali Jolly & Anr. on 6 May, 2016
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ I.P.A No.5/2016
% 6th May, 2016
RAJAN MEHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sharad K. Agrawal, Advocate.
Versus
SMT GEETANJALI JOLLY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
I.A. No.5651/2016 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
I.A. stands disposed of.
+I.P.A. No.5/2016 and I.A. Nos.5652/2016 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and 5653/2016 (under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC)
2. This pauper petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff who is the divorced husband of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1/wife. I may mention that the aspect of paupership of the petitioner/plaintiff is being accepted by me only and since in my opinion no legal cause of action is pleaded in the plaint and therefore, I allow the petitioner to sue as a pauper and the petition is converted into a suit.
IPA No.5/2016 Page 1 of 4
3. The subject suit is a suit seeking damages/compensation for a sum of Rs.2.10 crores. Therefore the suit is a suit under law of torts of the civil wrongs of the defendants. Defendant no.2 in the present suit is the present husband of the defendant no.1 and with whom the defendant no.1 married after the decree of divorce was passed in favour of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff by the competent court at Gurgaon on 2.8.2013.
4. A reading of the plaint shows that the averments have been made under the following heads:
(i) Plaintiff was married with the defendant no.1, and defendant no.1 after divorce with the plaintiff got married with the defendant no.2.
(ii) The divorce decree was passed in favour of the defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff by the concerned court at Gurgaon on 2.8.2013 and which decree has achieved finality as plaintiff has not challenged the same and the plaint itself admits to the finality of the divorce decree.
(iii) Plaintiff avers that the defendant no.1 already knew the defendant no.2 before marriage and after spoiling the life of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 has now got married to the defendant no.2.
(iv) Defendant no.1 filed proceedings against the plaintiff under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) which were decreed ex parte. Plaintiff challenged the ex parte Judgment dated 13.12.2012 in the IPA No.5/2016 Page 2 of 4 proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) but that application also was dismissed on 8.3.2016. Against the Order dated 8.3.2016, plaintiff has filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing Mat. App. (F.C.) no.43/2016 and which is pending.
(v) The plaint also talks of a complaint filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no.1 under the provision of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) etc whch is said to be pending.
5. For a suit to be maintained on the basis of a cause of action of a civil wrong under the law of torts it is necessary that what is the wrong or the illegality which is committed by the defendants in the present suit has to be mentioned and specifically pleaded. It is only if the defendants are guilty of a civil wrong, then, the plaintiff has a legal cause of action to file the present suit for damages.
6. The aforesaid heads of facts stated in the plaint do not show as to how a civil wrong is caused to the plaintiff by the acts of the defendants, more particularly the defendant no.2 who is the present husband of the defendant no.1. The fact that divorce proceedings came to be filed and which decree has become final cannot be a civil wrong for grant of damages merely because the decree is an ex parte decree. Similarly, a judgment obtained in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings by the defendant no.1 again cannot be said to be a civil wrong especially because the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been IPA No.5/2016 Page 3 of 4 dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiff is still pending. As of today therefore no cause of action accrues even with respect to the defendant no.1 allegedly obtaining the decree under Section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings by fraud by putting up an Advocate and that this Advocate who appeared in Section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings for the plaintiff did not appear on the instructions of the plaintiff and who was the respondent in the Section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings.
7. Clearly therefore the present suit does not contain any legal cause of action of any civil wrong having been committed against the plaintiff by the defendants, and once no legal wrong is committed there does not arise any cause of action for this suit to be entertained, much less for an amount of Rs.2.10 crores and for which no basis is given by the plaintiff. I may note that the damages are quantified depending upon the status of a person but no averments exist in the petition with respect to the status of the plaintiff either by reference to income tax returns or properties or any other aspects/position which would give a particular status to the plaintiff to claim damages of Rs.2.10 crores against the defendants.
8. In view of the above, the suit plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the plaintiff to succeed in the suit for damages of Rs.2.10 crores against the defendants. Suit is therefore dismissed. Since the suit is dismissed, all pending applications will also stand dismissed.
MAY 06, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
IPA No.5/2016 Page 4 of 4