Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, has strenuously objected and contended that, whether the appellant/plaintiff was party or stranger, she cannot file separate suit for setting aside the compromise decree, as not binding, without challenging the decree. The clever drafting of 'not binding' is not maintainable. Further submits, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically stated, in the case reported in 2020 6 (SC) 629 in case of Trilokinath Singh Vs Anirudh Singh (D) through Lrs, that even if plaintiff is stranger, he cannot file separate suit and the plaintiff required to file application before the same court, for setting aside the said compromise decree, in view of the bar under Order 23 rule 3A of CPC. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

11.1. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions right from 1977 that a mere clever drafting would not permit the plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33953 should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11CPC 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 by examining the party searchingly under Order 10CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits."

11.3. In Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364] , this Court has observed and held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation.

13. As observed hereinabove and it is not in dispute that as such Respondent 1 -- original plaintiff has already moved an appropriate application before the court concerned, which passed the decree setting aside the compromise decree by submitting an application under Order 23 Rule 3-ACPC, therefore, the said application will have to be decided and disposed of in accordance with law in which all the defences/contentions which may have been available to the respective parties on the validity of the compromise decree would have to be gone into by the court concerned in accordance with law and on its own merits."