Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.Aggrieved over the filing of the above suits, the revision petitioners have filed these Civil Revision Petitions seeking to struck off the plaint as not maintainable and legally barred on the ground of limitation, further lacking cause of Action and devoid of legally enforceable right on the basis of an alleged sale agreement dated 07.03.1977.

7.I heard Mr.C.Bharathi, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the C.R.P.s and Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the sole respondent in CRP(MD)No.2482 of 2017 and respondents 1 to 3 in CRP(MD)No.2486 of 2017 and respondents 2 to 5 in CRP(MD)No.2485 of 2017 and perused the records.

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.

53. Having considered the plaint averments and the admitted documents, copy of the notice issued by the respondent / plaintiff and the other public document, namely G.O.(2D) No.19, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (T.P.II) Department, dated 25.03.2010, it has been made crystal clear that the suit itself is a clear abuse of process of law and court. There is no legally acceptable cause of action available to the respondent / plaintiff, for the relief sought for in the plaint, the suit is also barred by statute, namely the Limitation Act, hence, this Court is of the view that there is no chance of the suit succeeding and accordingly, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court, this revision has to be allowed and pass orders to struck off the plaint, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution.?