Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Moreover the plaintiff has no right to sit in judgment on the opinion given by them. The opinion rendered cannot be challenged in the court of law by any 3rd party. Moreover, the opinion forms part of a privileged communication between a client and their counsel. There is no cause of action against D2 and as such the plaint is liable to be rejected and the various paragraphs mentioned in the affidavit have to be expunged and the name of D2 should be struck out from the plaint. Hence, these petitions.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The points that arise for consideration are:-

i. Whether the leave already granted by the order dated 7.9.2000 is liable to be revoked?

ii. Whether the pleadings in the plaint against D2, are scandalous and frivolous and liable to be expunged?

iii. Whether the plaint has to be rejected against D2 as there is no cause of action?

iv. Whether the name of D2 has to be struck out from the plaint?

v. Whether the plaintiff has got a prima fade case and the balance of convenience is in their favour?

19. It is, therefore, evidently clear from the aforesaid discussion and also the position of law that there is absolutely no cause of action for the plaintiff to proceed against the second defendant and the cause of action has been deliberately introduced so as to give jurisdiction for the plaintiff to file the suit before this Court. When once the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to proceed against the second defendant, the leave already granted is liable to be revoked and the name of the second defendant from the plaint also has to be struck off. Further more, the plaint has to be rejected in so far as the second defendant is concerned for want of cause of action. It is necessary to state that the plaintiff had unnecessarily filed the suit before this Court only to harass the parties. When the decision was taken in the Board Meeting at Tuticorin and the Registered Office of the Bank is also at Tuticorin and the plaintiff is also a resident outside the city of Madras, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit where the registered office of the bank is situated. Rightly the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 224 of 2000 before the proper court and it is quite probable that as no interim order was granted, he had thought it fit to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action; but at a later point of time, on some advice he had filed the suit before this court on a different cause of action and on these grounds, I am of the view that the act of the plaintiff is highly condemnable and, as such, he should be dealt with severely for his conduct.

The analogy in this decision also can be made applicable to the case on hand.

27. It is, therefore, evidently clear that the various averments made in the paras referred to above are unnecessary, scandalous frivolous and vexatious and, as such, they are liable to be deleted from the pleadings. There is no cause of action against the second defendant and, as such, the plaint has to be rejected in respect of the second defendant and under the circumstance, the name of the second defendant also has to be struck out from the plaint. The leave granted to the plaintiff also is liable to be revoked. Hence, these points are answered accordingly.