Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.
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.?

(v) the petitioner claims that the second respondent ceased to be a Member of the Association and President of Tamil Nadu State Branch of Association, as he failed to pay the subscription within the stipulated time. The amount alleged to have been paid by the second respondent, is not members subscription and it relates to some other transaction. On the other hand, the second respondent claimed that he has paid the subscription within the time as contemplated by Bye-laws and he continues to hold the post of President. The petitioner has to prove his claim that the second respondent ceased to be the President and he need not consult the second respondent for convening the Executive Committee Meeting by acceptable evidence and plaint cannot be struck off summarily;

13.It is pertinent to note that the Court must exercise this power sparingly and only in extraordinary cases. The plaint can be struck off only when the Court is satisfied that it is a fit case to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This power is discretionary power and the Court must exercise the power judicially. The Court can consider only the averments in the plaint to decide whether the plaint is liable to be struck off or not. The written statement or any document relied on by the defendant cannot be considered.

18.The petitioner is seeking for striking off the plaint on the facts, which are disputed by the respondents. The disputed question of fact can be decided only based on evidence let in by the parties during trial. From the reading of the plaint, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action or the suit is abuse of process of Court. The various contentions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner can be decided only after trial and the plaint cannot be struck off at the threshold. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the petitioner has not made out any case to strike off the plaint by exercising extraordinary discretionary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.