Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"14. After examining the pleadings of the Plaint as discussed above, we are clearly of the opinion that by clever drafting of the Plaint the civil suit which is hopelessly barred for seeking avoidance of registered sale deed of 05.05.1953, has been instituted by taking recourse NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/26/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined to orders passed in mutation proceedings by the revenue courts.

44. This is also in view of the well-established propositions of law.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that such frivolous litigations must be nipped in the bud. Obviously, the Plaintiff is going to state that it had no knowledge of the transactions. However, it is the duty of the Court perusing the Plaint through the lens of Order VII Rule 11 to scrutinize the same and see through the clever drafting.

46. In T. Arivanandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 Hon'ble Apex Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words : (SCC p. 470, para 5) "5. ...The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing ..."

80. The present is the case of shrewd and crafty drafting, the averments made in the Plaint clearly show that by clever drafting the Plaintiff has tried to show that the suit is within the period of limitation. The Court has to consider and read in meaningful manner the averments made in the Plaint and the present suit having been filed challenging 36 Sale Deeds including the first Sale Deed executed in the year 1964 the Plaint is hopelessly time barred. The bar of limitation has got its own significance and the object as such by referring smart averments, such statutory provision cannot be sidelined. Though the issue of limitation is mixed question of law and fact but only by that fact an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code cannot be rejected as it would frustrate the very purpose of the said provision and permit such kind of frivolous litigation which are hopelessly barred by law of limitation and the same will have to be decided irrespective of its tenability.