Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: STRUCK OF PLAINT in N.A.Chinnasamy vs S.Vellingirinathan on 9 October, 2013Matching Fragments
26. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, referring N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishna Murthy, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 thus :
"Unending period of launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy."
27. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, its aim being to secure quiet with the community, to suppress fraud and perjury to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. Hence while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to go through and consider the whole pleading of the plaintiff, for which the averments of the written statement shall be gone into. It has been made clear that the plaint could be rejected, as per the averments of the pleading of the plaintiff that (1) where there is no cause of action to seek the relief sought for in the suit (2) the suit is barred by any statute and (3) if the suit being filed is found as an abuse of process of law. If any one of the aforesaid grounds is established, the Court can invoke Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. When a revision petition is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, the requirement to struck off the plaint is more than what is required to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. If filing of the suit itself is a clear abuse of process, based on the plaint averments and the admitted facts of the plaintiff, this Court can pass appropriate orders to struck off the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, merely, based on the inordinate delay or the grounds raised under the Limitation Act, plaint cannot be rejected. If the plaintiff, having sufficient knowledge about the occurrence, after a lapse of time, without any bonafide intention, approaches the Court, after the period of limitation, the same shall be presumed as an abuse of process of Court. If the suit filed is an abuse of process of law and court, this Court can pass appropriate orders, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to struck off the plaint, in order to prevent abuse of process of court and to meet the ends of justice.
48. It is a settled proposition of law that to exercise the superintending power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to struck off plaint, this Court should come to a conclusion, that the suit is an abuse of process of law, based on the plaint averments and the admission made by the plaintiff and to decide the same, the provision under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has also got relevancy.
49. As per Order VII Rule 11 CPC, when there is no subsisting legal cause of action for seeking the relief sought for in the plaint or when the relief sought for is statutorily barred or if the deficit court fee is not paid on the direction, as date fixed by the Court below, plaint could be rejected. So far as the non-payment of proper and deficit court fee is concerned, it should be decided by the trial court, after providing reasonable opportunity, directing the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee, wherein the plaintiff is also entitled to challenge the correctness of the court fee paid on the plaint, hence, this Court need not go into the aspect at this stage.
50. The other two points under Order VII Rule 1 CPC are relating to no cause of action for filing the suit and the statutory bar under the Limitation Act. Apart from the said grounds, if it is also established that the filing of the suit itself is an abuse of process of law and the Court, hence, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaint could be to struck off, to meet the ends of justice.
51. In the instant case, a perusal of the averments made in the cause of action, para of the plaint by the respondent / plaintiff could not be construed as cause of action, in the eye of law, to maintain the suit, for the relief sought for in the plaint. Having executed the registered sale deed, 12 years after the execution of the sale deed, the respondent / plaintiff has come forward with the present suit, by raising an unsustainable plea, that on the date of executing the deed, he was thinking that it was a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. 12 years after executing the deed, he has raised such an unreasonable plea, hence, such an abuse must be deprecated. After executing the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar's Office, as per the earlier registered agreement for sale, it is not open to the respondent / plaintiff to raise a self contradictory plea stating that he had signed in the Sub-Registrar's Office in various papers, 12 years later in the last week of June 2012, he came to know that it was a sale deed, though he was thinking that it was only a mortgage deed, for which he received a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- and interest was paid without getting any receipt or acknowledgement, saying that the petitioners / defendants were not in the habit of issuing receipt. Such unsustainable, frivolous plea against the registered document executed by him would show that the respondent / plaintiff has not come forward with clean hands and also spoken the truth in the plaint. The self contradictory version of the respondent / plaintiff, which is against law, cannot be construed as cause of action to maintain the suit. In a case of vexatious litigation, it would be the solemn duty of this Court to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to struck off the plaint, which contains improper and unreasonable pleadings of the respondent / plaintiff, which could not be accepted by any reasonable prudent man. The suit has been filed after 12 years, after executing the sale deed is hopelessly barred by limitation and the respondent is not entitled to raise a plea of date of knowledge, as he was party to the sale deed.
52. It cannot be disputed that plaint could be struck off only in the rarest of cases, when there is clear abuse of process of law and Court, however, the same has to be decided only based on the pleadings and the admission made by the plaintiff and not based on the written statement and when the court comes to a conclusion that there is no possibility for the plaintiff to succeed and filing such a suit is also an abuse of process of law and the Court. In this Revision, all these aspects are available against the respondent / plaintiff, hence, this Court has no hesitation to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution and struck off the plaint, to meet the ends of justice.