Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
(See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal
[(1977) 4 SCC 467].
Subhaga & Ors vs Shobha & Ors on 7 July, 2006
4.3 It is submitted that as per the settled position
of law what is important is boundaries and
not the survey number mentioned in the
document. Reliance is placed upon the
decision of the Privy Council in the case of
The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative
Society Ltd. Vs. Government of Palestine
and Ors. AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207
(para 7) as well as the decision of this Court
in the case of Subhaga and Ors. Vs. Shobha
and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 466, it is submitted
Page 14 of 26
that as laid down in the aforesaid decisions
that even if there is any discrepancy in the
document the boundary should prevail.
4.4 It is further submitted that as such while
considering the application under Order VII
Rule XI and the prayer for rejection of the
plaint, only averments of plaint are material
and can be taken into consideration and any
evidence or averments made in the written
statement cannot be considered.
Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties on 4 October, 2019
7.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Nusli
Neville Wadia (supra) is concerned, again
there cannot be any dispute with respect to
the proposition of law laid down by this Court
that while deciding the application under
Page 24 of 26
Order VII Rule XI, mainly the averments in
the plaint only are required to be considered
and not the averments in the written
statement. However, on considering the
averments in the plaint as they are, we are of
the opinion that the plaint is ought to have
been rejected being vexatious, illusory cause
of action and barred by limitation and it is a
clear case of clever drafting.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross
abuse of the process of the court
repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to.
From the statement of the facts found in
the judgment of the High Court, it is
perfectly plain that the suit now pending
before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore,
Page 19 of 26
is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the
law in receiving plaints. 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 7 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 by examining the party
searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An
activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits.”
5.2 In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs.
Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 in paras
11 and 12, this Court has observed and held
as under:
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC
70] it was held that the basic question to
be decided while dealing with an
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code is whether a real cause of action
has been set out in the plaint or
something purely illusory has been stated
with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11
of the Code.
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal on 19 April, 2017
)”
5.3 In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra
Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174,
this Court observed and held as under:
Ram Singh & Ors vs Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan & Ors on 22 September, 1986
The averments in the written statement as
well as the contentions of the defendant
are wholly immaterial while considering
the prayer of the defendant for rejection of
the plaint. Even when the allegations
made in the plaint are taken to be correct
as a whole on their face value, if they show
that the suit is barred by any law, or do
not disclose cause of action, the
application for rejection of plaint can be
entertained and the power under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. 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.”
5.4 In the case of Ram Singh Vs. Gram
Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364,
this Court observed and held that when the
suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot
be allowed to circumvent that provision by
Page 22 of 26
means of clever drafting so as to avoid
mention of those circumstances, by which the
suit is barred by law of limitation.
Tirupati Co-Operative Town Bank ... vs Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, ... on 10 December, 2002
4.3 It is submitted that as per the settled position
of law what is important is boundaries and
not the survey number mentioned in the
document. Reliance is placed upon the
decision of the Privy Council in the case of
The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative
Society Ltd. Vs. Government of Palestine
and Ors. AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 207
(para 7) as well as the decision of this Court
in the case of Subhaga and Ors. Vs. Shobha
and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 466, it is submitted
Page 14 of 26
that as laid down in the aforesaid decisions
that even if there is any discrepancy in the
document the boundary should prevail.
4.4 It is further submitted that as such while
considering the application under Order VII
Rule XI and the prayer for rejection of the
plaint, only averments of plaint are material
and can be taken into consideration and any
evidence or averments made in the written
statement cannot be considered.
1