Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)
Palak Mahajan vs The Secretary Of Education on 30 August, 2019 cites

Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974

In Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126, it was observed, "There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may, at one's peril, bring a suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever, frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit." It is as clear as daylight that plaintiff - appellant in his plaint was not required to plead the 'existence of any right to sue'. It was enough for him to have set out the 'material facts' in 'concise form', It was in fact for the Court to apply those 'material facts' to the applicable laws / bye­laws / office order / rules and regulations. The other ground for rejection of the plaint, as per Ld. Trial Court, was that the plaint did not 'specifically delineate the records of the defendants, which were to be changed'. This view is again incorrect. Plaintiff - appellant had specifically stated in his plaint that he had completed his 'senior secondary education' from the concerned school under CBSE. He had further stated in the plaint that he had approached CBSE for change in the 'education certificates'. His prayer, inter alia, was that the defendants - respondents be directed to change his name in their 'official records'. To my view, this was sufficient. Yet another ground for rejection of the plaint, as per Ld. Trial Court, was that the plaintiff had sued those who were 'non­entities in law'. But this is no ground to reject the plaint. To say that few of the defendants were 'non­entities in law' and as such plaintiff's lis is not maintainable and that has no legal remedy would be incorrect. If at all they were 'non­entities in law' there was nothing that had stopped the Court from invoking the powers conferred upon it under Order I Rule 10, CPC to add those who were actually 'entities in law'. Conversely, the plaintiff­appellant ought to have been given an opportunity to do the needful to array the actual 'entities in law'. To take an example, if a student suffers injury RCA No. 98/18 Page No. 5 of 6 to his person in his school campus on account of negligence of school staff and he sues the school for damages, can he be told that he has no remedy as the school whom he is suing is not an entity in law, or that he has not specifically pleaded in his plaint that he is suing and asserting his rights under the Tort of Negligence which is a common law remedy and that there are judicial decision setting out the law of tortious liability of negligence and the ingredients thereof. Certainly not. If in such a case, the school is a 'non­entity in law', then that student ought to be given an opportunity to array the actual 'entity in law' or the Court can exercise its own power under Order I Rule 10, CPC to add the actual 'entity in law'. And he also cannot be told to plead in his plaint, the law under which he asserts his right and what his legal rights are. In such a circumstance it cannot be said that his lis is not maintainable and that his plaint runs foul of Order VII Rule 11, CPC as it discloses no cause of action.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 396 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1