Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.45 seconds)The Specific Relief Act, 1963
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
In the
celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal
reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 it has been held
that if the suit is cleverly drafted to bring
within the limitation, it should be nipped in
the bud. This is the classic case, that requires
to be considered and determined at the
Page 21 of 30
Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
threshold. Conscious omission would not
permit any party to contend that, at the time
of deciding the application under Order VII
Rule 11, only and only the plaint and the
documents accompanying it can be
considered. Clearly, instances of abuse of
process of the Court would cover matters
where there is suppression of material fact as
on the date of institution of the proceedings.
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020
In the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali (supra), the Apex Court has
observed that the Court, must be vigilant
against any camouflage or suppression, and
determine whether the litigation is utterly
vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the
Court. Paragraphs 23.2, 23.3, 23.4 and 24.4
of the judgment, are reproduced hereinbelow
for ready reference:-
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
23.4 In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv
Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315, this
Court held that the whole purpose
of conferment of powers under this
provision is to ensure that a
litigation which is meaningless, and
bound to prove abortive, should not
be permitted to waste judicial time
of the court, in the following words:
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal on 19 April, 2017
24.4 If, however, by clever drafting
of the plaint, it has created the
illusion of a cause of action, this
Court in Madanuri Sri
Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed
Jalal11 held that it should be nipped
in the bud, so that bogus litigation
will end at the earliest stage. The
Court must be vigilant against any
camouflage or suppression, and
determine whether the litigation is
utterly vexatious, and an abuse of
the process of the court."
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rajhans Infrancon (India) Pvt Ltd vs Santosh Rameshbhai Rathod on 13 November, 2019
25. Yet in another judgment in the case of
Rajhans Infracon vs. Santosh Rameshbhai
Rathod (supra), this Court, has succinctly
considered the consequences of suppression
of material fact while filing the suit. This
Court has held and observed that it would be
obligatory for the plaintiff to plead the cause
of action with full material particulars,
documents, facts in issue and the relevant
facts to his knowledge, information and belief.
It has been further held and observed that the
obligation is cast upon the plaintiff to explain
in the pleadings that the plaint does not suffer
from material bar. It has been held and
observed that the plaint would not be saved
by clever drafting, therefore, pleading of all
the facts and production of the relevant
documents which may be in the knowledge
and information of the plaintiff is an
obligation cast upon it and it is not the matter
of choice of the plaintiff. The Court, therefore,
may be justified in comprehending such
concealed facts and documents, when
brought to its notice, for an order under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and in such an
eventuality the plaintiff cannot accuse the
Court being unfair to him. Paragraphs 6.1, 6.2
of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:-
T. A. George vs Chandrasekharan Nair (Died) Through ... on 13 October, 2023
4.1 Heard learned advocate Mr.A. V. Nair appearing for
learned advocate Mr.Samir B. Gogda for the appellant
and learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing for
learned advocate Mr.Masudiqbal H. Rathod for Defendant
Nos.10 and 11.
1