1. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an Order to struck down the Plaint pertaining to the Suit in O.S No. 920 of 2012 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
2. The Petitioners herein are the Defendants in the Suit in O.S No. 920 of 2012, which was filed by the Respondent herein, seeking Judgment and Decree (a) declaring the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000, executed in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants by the Respondent/Plaintiff, bearing document No. 653 of 2000 registered with Sub-Registrar Office, Gandhipuram, pertaining to the Suit property as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff, (c) directing the Defendants or anybody claiming under them to re-convey the Suit properties in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff without claiming any amount by executing conveyance deed and register the same with the Sub-Registrar's office concerned within such date to be stipulated by the Court below and in the event of failure on the part of the Second Defendant to do so, to execute and register the required Re-conveyance Deed for and on behalf of the Defendants by the Court below, (d) to grant an Order of Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to return back to the Plaintiff all the original Title Deeds/records pertaining to the Suit properties within the date stipulated by the Court below, (e) Award cost of the Suit, and (h) to pass such other Order or Orders that the Court below may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. It is seen from the xerox copy of the Plaint filed in the typed set of papers, that in the prayer portion, only (a), (c), (d), (e) and (h) are available. Prayer (b), (f) and (g) are not available for the reasons best known to the Respondent herein, who is the Plaintiff in the Suit.
4. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Defendants submitted that the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is a clear abuse of process of law and Court by the Respondent/Plaintiff, hence, the Petitioners/Defendants have approached this Court, by way of preferring the Revision, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to struck down the Plaint, in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and the Court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the alleged cause of action stated in the Plaint in Paragraph No. 11 (xerox copy of the Plaint available in the typed set of papers) which reads as follows:
“11. The cause of action for the Suit arose when the Plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and executed the nominal Agreement for Sale, dated 20.06.1997, on subsequent days when the Plaintiff paid the interest amounts, on the March 2000 when the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards principal, and failed to pay the interest for the months of May and June 2012, during the last week of June 2012 when the Plaintiff applied for an encumbrance certificate and came to light that as if the Plaintiff has sold a part of his property to the Defendants under a Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2007, on 27.07.2012 when the Plaintiff issued a Legal Notice to the Defendants and demanded to execute and register the Cancellation Deed with respect to the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 bearing Document No. 453 of 2000 and execute and register a Re-conveyance Deed, when the 1st Defendant sent an untenable belated Reply, dated 28.08.2012, thereafter when the Defendants refused to rectify their mistakes and on all subsequent dates when the Defendants failed to return the original Title Deeds of the Suit properties to the Plaintiff, during the last week of June 2012 when the Plaintiff came to know about the forges, fabricated and bogus document regarding the Suit property all within Kalapatti village and Coimbatore North Taluk within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.”
6. The Respondent/Plaintiff has stated in the Plaint that he had purchased the Suit properties under a Sale Deed, dated 06.03.1997 The xerox copy of the Sale Deed is available at page number 1 of the typed set of papers. As per this Sale Deed, it is seen that the Respondent/Plaintiff had purchased the property for Rs. 2,15,600/- on 06.03.1997 from his Vendors. Subsequently, as per the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000, a portion of the property was sold by Respondent/Plaintiff in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/- on 06.03.2000 In the Plaint pertaining to the Suit, the Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that he had borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Petitioners/Defendants on 20.06.1997 and paid interest amount in March 2000 and also paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the principal amount. Even according to the Respondent/Plaintiff, there is no supporting documents for the alleged payment by the Respondent/Plaintiff. The Respondent/Plaintiff has further stated in the Plaint that he had applied for Encumbrance Certificate in the first week of June 2012, whereby he came to know as if he had sold a part of the property to the Petitioners/Defendants, as per the Sale Deed dated 06.03.2000
7. As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners herein, the Respondent/Plaintiff has admitted that he had executed the registered document, dated 06.03.2000 in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants herein. As per the document, it is only a Sale Deed executed and registered for valuable consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/-, however, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed the suit on 05.11.2012, 12 years after executing the Sale Deed, stating that he had been over powered and influenced by the First Petitioner/First Defendant to execute a nominal Agreement for Sale instead of a mortgage deed and that the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 was obtained by fraudulent and deceitful means and with the averments, seeking a Decree declaring the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 executed by him as null and void, not binding on him and also to direct the Revision Petitioners/Defendants to re-convey the Suit properties in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and also mandatory injunction to return back the original Sale Deeds/records, pertaining to the Suit properties to the Respondent/Plaintiff.
8. As per the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 (copy of which produced by the Respondent/Plaintiff), the total sale consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/- was received by the Respondent/Plaintiff. However, he valued the Suit (1) for the purpose of declaration of Sale Deed null and void at Rs. 10,000/- and paid Court Fee under Section 25(d) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act at Rs. 50/-, (2) for re-conveyance, he valued the property at Rs. 1,10,000/- and paid Court-fee under Section 25(b) of the said Act, a sum of Rs. 8,250.80 and for permanent injunction, valued at Rs. 1000/- and paid Court-fee at Rs. 75.50 and for mandatory injunction, valued under Section 27(c) of the said Act at Rs. 1000/- and paid Court-fee at Rs. 75.50
9. As per the copy of the Sale Deed produced by the Respondent/Plaintiff along with the Plaint, it is seen that the Sale Deed was executed on 06.03.2000 by the Respondent/Plaintiff and registered as document for the consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Admittedly, the Respondent/Plaintiff is a party to the document, who executed the Sale Deed for a consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/-, as stated in the Sale Deed executed by him, however, he has not paid the Court-fee for the value shown in the deed. Subsequently, for the purpose of forming thar road, the Petitioners/Defendants have executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of Kalapatti Town Panchayat, Coimbatore District on 05.03.2010 as owners of the Suit property. The copy of the Registered Gift Settlement Deed, dated 05.03.2010 is also available in the typed set of papers, which is not in dispute. The Letter, dated 12.02.2010 addressed by the Executive Officer of Kalapatti Panchayat in Na.Ka No. 1300/2009.A with regard to Gift Settlement Deed to be executed by the Petitioners/Defendants and other owners of the lands towards the confirmation and for formation of the public thar road is also available in the typed set of papers. In this regard, the sketch prepared by the Coimbatore (North Taluk), Coimbatore, showing the thar road running on the lands belongs to various persons and a portion of the said road in a part of the Suit property belongs to the Petitioners/Defendants is also shown. In view of the Gift Settlement Deed executed by the Petitioners/Defendants, as owners of the said portion of the land, the Petitioners/Defendants names are stated with Patta number, extent, survey number and other details in the public document.
10. It is seen from the copy of the G.O (2D) No. 19, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (T.P.II) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 25.03.2010 available in the typed set of papers that there was forming of the public road for World Tamil Classical Language Conference at Coimbatore in the year 2010, for which, Administrative sanction relating to Kalapatti Town Panchayat was accorded by the Government of Tamil Nadu and for the formation of thar road with modified alignment and for the works, an estimated cost of Rs. 77 lakhs was also made by the Government. In this regard, Gift Settlement Deeds were executed by various persons, as owners of portions of their lands, which had been taken over by the Government for forming the said road. It is clearly stated in the G.O referred to above in Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 available at page number 3 of the said G.O that a portion of the Petitioners/Defendants land, that was also part of the Suit property, for which the Petitioners/Defendants had executed Gift Settlement Deed on 05.03.2010, measuring 10.8 cents for the purpose of forming the thar road, being the land owners. No such document was executed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, as he had sold the property in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants. The xerox copy of the registered Partition Deed, dated 14.07.2010 between the Petitioners 1 & 2 is also produced and as per the document, there was a partition of the Suit property between the Petitioner herein. It is seen that on 30.01.2012, after the partition, there was a registered Exchange Deed between one N. Sivasami and the Second Petitioner-C. Sethupathi, which is admittedly a portion of the Suit property, which would show that the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 executed by the Respondent/Plaintiff in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants was acted upon.
11. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent/Plaintiff having executed the Sale Deed for valuable consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/- on 06.03.2000 in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants, 12 years after executing the Sale Deed, has filed the frivolous and vexatious Suit against the Petitioners, which is a clear abuse of process of Court and law. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the suit could not have been numbered by the Court below, based on the averments of the Plaint and the admission made by him in the documents filed by him along with the Plaint. According to him, as there was no other efficacious alternative remedy to prevent the abuse of process of Court committed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Revision has been preferred by the Petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, the following decisions were relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners:
1. Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited., 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 224 (SC) : 2012 (5) CTC 359 (SC) : 2013 (1) SCC 625;
2. R.M Subbiah v. S. Ramakrishnan, 2012 (1) CTC 659 : 2012 (1) LW 437;
3. Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited v. R. Srinivasan, 2010 (4) CTC 690;
4. Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai v. Selvaraj Sundar, 2009 (2) CTC 57;
5. Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society v. S.R Ejaz, 2009 (5) CTC 710;
6. Seeni Alias Sundarammal v. Ramasamy Poosari, 2000 (3) CTC 74;
7. Maria Soosai v. Esakkiammal, 1999 (1) LW 727;
8. Ramiah Asari v. Tmt. Kurshad Begaum, 1999 (1) CTC 600;
9. Nesammal v. Edward, 1998 (2) CTC 537.
12. Per contra, Mr. V. Nicholas, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Revision is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff contended that the First Petitioner/D1 had advanced a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as loan in cash and as security for repayment of the said loan amount, he insisted the Respondent/Plaintiff to execute a registered Agreement for Sale, in respect of part of the properties purchased by him on 06.03.1997 As per the Plaint averments, the Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that he had received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the First Petitioner/D1 only as loan on 20.06.1997 and paid monthly interest and also a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards principal. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, in the Plaint itself, the Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that the amounts were said to have been paid by him, without any receipt, acknowledgement or supporting materials, hence, such a plea, 12 years after the execution of the Sale Deed is unsustainable in law.
13. The Respondent/Plaintiff has stated in the Plaint that the property, an extent of 1.96 acres had been purchased by him on 06.03.1997 for a sum of Rs. 2,15,600/-, as per the xerox copy of the registered Sale Deed, available at page number 1 of the typed set. Subsequently, as per the registered sale agreement, dated 20.06.1997 entered into between the First Petitioner and the Respondent, it was agreed to sell a portion of the property, an extent of 1.48 acres of land in favour of the First Petitioner/D1 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/-, out of which, advance amount and part of sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- was received by the Respondent/Plaintiff on 20.06.1997 itself. Subsequently, on 06.03.2000, the property was sold by the Respondent/Plaintiff under the registered Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants. Having executed the registered Sale Deed, it is not open to the Respondent/Plaintiff to challenge the Sale Deed, 12 years after the execution of the Sale Deed, saying that it was only a registered agreement and not a Sale Deed, though the document is only a Sale Deed and seek an order to declare the Sale Deed null and void and not binding on the Respondent/Plaintiff and other reliefs. The pertinent question raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants is whether the Respondent/Plaintiff is not estopped from raising a plea, contrary to the registered Sale Deed, that was executed by him, 12 years prior to the date of filing of the Suit by him.
14. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Suit is not barred by Limitation, on the ground that the Suit was filed, based on the date of knowledge. It is well settled that a party to a document, ignoring the date of the document is not entitled to plead date of knowledge, contrary to the date of the document. In support of his contention, the following decisions were relied on by Mr. A. Nicholas, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent:
1. Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, 2005 (4) CTC 489 (SC);
2. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, 1999 (1) CTC 175 (SC) : 1998 (7) SCC 184;
3. R. Arumugam v. P.R Palanisamy, 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 531 : 2013 (2) LW 84;
4. Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra Raja, 2013 (2) CTC 756;
5. Central Govt. Employees' Welfare Housing Organization v. Consolidated Civil Constructions (I) Ltd., 2012 (1) MWN (Civil) 633;
6. K. Ponnamal & Others… v. V. Thayanban & Others…, 2012 (1) MWN (Civil) 701 : 2012 (2) LW 193;
7. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association v. The Board for Control of Cricket in India, 2011 (5) LW 838;
8. Astral Cables Limited v. National Small Industries Corporation Limited, 2011 (2) LW 332;
9. T. Mohanraj v. Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam, 2011 (3) MWN (Civil) 787 (DB);
10. V. Krishnamoorthy v. Balakrishnan, 2011 (2) LW 45;
11. Lili Jabakani, J. v. T.A Chandrasekhar, 2006 (5) CTC 848.
15. In T. Mohanraj v. Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam, 2011 (3) MWN (Civil) 787 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court (Elipe Dharma Rao & M. Venugopal, JJ.) held that while deciding application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, for rejection of the Plaint, the Court has to consider the pleadings, as stated in Plaint, but shall not embark upon any rowing enquiry into the truthfulness or falsity of the Plaint averments. Technical plea for rejection of Plaint has to be satisfactorily explained and the same cannot be presumed merely based on inferential reasoning, assumptions and presumptions.
16. In Astral Cables Limited v. National Small Industries Corporation Limited, 2011 (2) LW 332, another Division Bench of this Court (R. Banumathi & M.M Sundresh, JJ.), has held that while considering rejection of the Plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, the strength or weakness of the Plaintiff's case is not to be seen and what is required to be disclosed by the Plaintiff is a clear right to sue. While considering the application, the Court is not required to take into consideration the defence set up by the Defendant in his Written Statement. Whether the Plaint discloses any cause of action is to be decided by looking at the Plaint averments and not the defence set up in the Written Statement.
17. In Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra Raja, 2013 (2) CTC 756, the Petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, for rejecting the Plaint, the Trial Court will be in a position to decide whether the Plaint should be rejected at the threshold without trial. In the event of the rejection of the Plaint, the aggrieved party has the right to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is extraordinary and it is the supervisory jurisdiction and by exercising the power of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal.
18. In R. Arumugam v. P.R Palanisamy, 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 531 : 2013 (2) LW 84, this Court (P.R Shivakumar, J.), held that mere suppression of fact alone shall not be the ground for holding that the Plaint lacks pleadings regarding cause of action. When a Plaint contains clear pleadings spelling out the cause of action, the question whether such a cause of action is true or not, cannot be the scope of enquiry in an Application filed under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. It has been made clear in the decision that suppression of material facts alone shall not entitle a Defendant to seek the Plaint rejected, on the ground of lacking in cause of action, as contemplated, under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC.
19. In K. Ponnamal & Others… v. V. Thayanban & Others…, 2012 (1) MWN (Civil) 701 : 2012 (2) LW 193, this Court (M.Y Eqbal, C.J), has held as follows:
“11. It is well settled that the power conferred by the Constitution on the High Courts in each State under Article 227 of the Constitution is not only confined to judicial superintendence over Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. This is because each High Court is the highest Court in the State. The judicial power of superintendence enable the High Courts to ensure that Subordinate Courts and Tribunals function within the boundary of law. The judicial as well as administrative superintendence is to be exercised if it is found that there is a serious breach of law which resulting injustice to the parties. Articles 233 to 237 of the Constitution of India confer and vest the power in the High Court to control over all District Courts and other Sub-ordinate Courts and Tribunal…”
20. In Central Govt. Employees' Welfare Housing Organization v. Consolidated Civil Constructions (I) Ltd., 2012 (1) MWN (Civil) 633, this Court (T.S Sivagnanam, J.), has held that when Plaint discloses a cause of action, it could not be rejected on the ground that averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein, for the purpose of obtaining the relief claimed in the Suit, under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC.
21. In V. Krishnamoorthy v. Balakrishnan, 2011 (2) LW 45, (S. Palanivelu, J.), has held that this Court can refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, based on the alternative remedy, the relief under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of Plaint before the Trial Court.
22. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, 1999 (1) CTC 175 (SC) : 1998 (7) SCC 184, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that under Order 7, Rule 11(d), CPC, the Court has to consider what the Plaintiff had alleged in the Plaint to be the basis of its cause of action, which could be culled out on a conjoint reading of all the paragraphs of the Plaint. Whereby it has been made clear that the Plaint could be rejected on the ground, if there is no cause of action raised to maintain the Suit.
23. In Lili Jabakani, J. v. T.A Chandrasekhar, 2006 (5) CTC 848, this Court (K. Raviraja Pandian, J.), has held that disputed question of fact cannot be taken as a ground, for rejection of Plaint, wherein the Defendant pleaded that the Suit was bad on the ground that it was not valued properly, though absence of cause of action is a ground for rejection of Plaint, under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC.
24. Having gone through the decisions, this Court is of the view that the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff are not applicable to support the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
25. In Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, 2005 (4) CTC 489 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Plaintiff therein, can file fresh Suit in terms of Rule 13 and hence, rejection of Plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC does not preclude the Plaintiff from filing a fresh Suit. In the aforesaid decision, it has been categorically held that the power vested under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked if on meaningful reading of Plaint, no clear right to sue is found, and where Plaint is vexatious and meritless, for which, the whole Plaint must be read and there cannot be compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of language of various paragraphs in the Plaint and on such circumstance, it would not be the ground for rejecting the Plaint.
26. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, referring N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy, 1998 (2) CTC 533 (SC) : 1998 (7) SCC 123 thus:
“Unending period of launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The Law of Limitation is, thus, founded on public policy.”
27. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, its aim being to secure quiet with the community, to suppress fraud and perjury to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. Hence, while invoking Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to go through and consider the whole pleading of the Plaintiff, for which the averments of the Written Statement shall be gone into. It has been made clear that the Plaint could be rejected, as per the averments of the pleading of the Plaintiff that (1) where there is no cause of action to seek the relief sought for in the Suit (2) the Suit is barred by any statute, and (3) if the Suit being filed is found as an abuse of process of law. If any one of the aforesaid grounds is established, the Court can invoke Order 7, Rule 11, CPC to reject the Plaint. When a Revision Petition is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, the requirement to struck off the Plaint is more than what is required to reject the Plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. If filing of the Suit itself is a clear abuse of process, based on the Plaint averments and the admitted facts of the Plaintiff, this Court can pass appropriate Orders to struck off the Plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, merely, based on the inordinate delay or the grounds raised under the Limitation Act, Plaint cannot be rejected. If the Plaintiff, having sufficient knowledge about the occurrence, after a lapse of time, without any bona fide intention, approaches the Court, after the period of limitation, the same shall be presumed as an abuse of process of Court. If the Suit filed is an abuse of Process of Law and Court, this Court can pass appropriate Orders, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to struck off the Plaint, in order to prevent abuse of process of Court and to meet the ends of justice.
28. In R.M Subbiah v. S. Ramakrishnan, 2012 (1) CTC 659 : 2012 (1) LW 437, this Court (K. Venkataraman, J.), has held that normally Plaint cannot be rejected, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, however, if a party comes to the Court with unclean hands and re-agitates the matters, Courts are not powerless to exercise its discretion in putting a full stop to the same and accordingly, the Suit was ordered to be struck off under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
29. In Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society v. S.R Ejaz, 2009 (5) CTC 710, this Court (K.K Sasidharan, J.) has held that Court cannot be a tool in the hands of vexatious litigants and that would be a mockery of justice to permit Respondent therein to enjoy luxury of re-litigation.
30. In Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai v. Selvaraj Sundar, 2009 (2) CTC 57, this Court (S. Palanivelu, J.), has held that provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC are not exhaustive, however Court has got inherent powers to see that vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume time of the Court and accordingly, Court can reject the Plaint, if allegations in Plaint reveals an abuse of process of law.
31. In Seeni Alias Sundarammal v. Ramasamy Poosari, 2000 (3) CTC 74, this Court (A. Raman, J.), has held that process of Court should not be misused or abused but shall be used bona fidely and properly. The Court should prevent improper use of litigative process. The question, whether litigation is frivolous or abuse of process, has to be judged from the angle of interest of justice and public policy. As the litigation had abused process of Court, it was held that High Court, while exercising its power of superintendence can step in, where there is blatant violation of process of Court.
32. In Maria Soosai v. Esakkiammal, 1999 (1) LW 727, this Court (S.S Subramani, J.), relying on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K Modi v. K.N Modi, 1982 (2) AIR SCW 116, has held thus:
“Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of Court, especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of Courts' discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised and exercised only in special cases.”
33. In Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited v. R. Srinivasan, 2010 (4) CTC 690, this Court (A. Selvam, J.) has held that alternative remedy under CPC is not a bar to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
34. In Ramiah Asari v. Tmt. Kurshad Begaum, 1999 (1) CTC 600, this Court (S.S Subramani, J.), relying on the decision in K.K Modi v. K.N Modi, 1998 (3) SCC 573, held that the Court should invoke its inherent power to strike off Plaint when it comes to the conclusion that the claim has been made only for collateral purpose or is spurious one or of frivolous nature or improper use of machinery of Court or its continued prosecution results in vexatious litigation.
35. In K.K Modi v. K.N Modi, 1998 (3) SCC 573, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the Court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the Courts discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The Court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the Suit succeeding.”
36. In Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited., 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 224 (SC) : 2012 (5) CTC 359 (SC) : 2013 (1) SCC 625, relying on Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank Of India., 2005 (2) CTC 582 (SC) : 2005 (4) SCC 315, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the object behind the enactment of the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, is to prevent multiplicity of litigations on the same cause of action. The true object of the law would not stand fully subserved by holding that the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, CPC will apply only if the first Suit is disposed of and not in a situation where the second Suit has been filed during the pendency of the first Suit. It has been made clear that Order 2, Rule 2, CPC will apply to both the aforesaid situations.
37. The catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court referred to above, would categorically make it clear, the scope of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaint could be rejected, where it does not disclose any cause of action, relating to the relief sought for and the cause of action alleged in the Plaint should be relevant and legally sustainable to the relief sought for in the Plaint. Where the Suit is undervalued or deficit Court-fee has been paid, without providing opportunity to pay the deficit Court-fee, such a Plaint cannot be rejected. In the said circumstances, to pay proper Court-fee, opportunity must be given, for which, the Court has to fix the time limit for the payment of deficit Court-fee, as per Rule 11(c) and if the direction is not complied with, the Trial Court would be empowered to reject the Plaint. However, if the Suit is barred by any law, the Court can reject the Plaint, under Order 7, Rule 11(d), CPC.
38. As the Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it being the superintending power of the High Court over all Subordinate Courts, including Tribunals, this Court can interfere, only if there is clear abuse of process of Court, based on the averments or pleadings of the Plaint. If it is established that the Suit has been filed as an abuse of process of Court, in order to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to avoid miscarriage of justice, this Court has to order strike off the Plaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above has categorically ruled that where there is abuse of process of Court or filing the Suit itself is contrary to justice and against Public Policy, this Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. If it is a frivolous or vexatious Suit, as per the pleadings of the Plaint and the Court process is being wasted, this Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the Plaint. However, such jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. When the Court is satisfied that there is no chance of the Suit succeeding, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K Modi v. K.N Modi (cited supra), Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has to be allowed by this Court, to prevent abuse of process of law and to meet the ends of justice.
39. In the instant case, as per the Plaint averments, the Respondent/Plaintiff had executed the registered Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/-. He has admitted the execution and also the registration of the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 However, 12 years after the execution of the Sale Deed, he issued legal notice, dated 27.7.2012, stating that he had signed the registered document, thinking that it was a Mortgage Deed executed by him. As per the document, it is an admitted fact, in respect of execution and registration of the same and a copy of which was also filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, along with the Plaint. However, in the Plaint the Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that he was in need of a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-, for which he was asked by the Petitioners/Defendants to visit the Sub-Registrar's Office concerned, where he obtained signatures of the Respondent/Plaintiff in the stamped papers. It reads further in Paragraph Number 4 of the Legal Notice issued (copy of which was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff) by the Respondent/Plaintiff as follows:
“My client with all faith, belief and trust executed several signatures as instructed by you under the fond hope of mortgaging his property. My client had agreed to redeem the mortgage within a period of 5 years.”
40. The xerox copy of the registered Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 produced by the Respondent/Plaintiff before the Court below and the averments therein would clearly show that it is a registered Sale Deed executed by the Respondent/Plaintiff in favour of the Petitioners/Defendants. The signatures of the Respondent/Plaintiff and the registration of the document by the Sub-Registrar were not disputed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. However, 12 years after the execution and registration of the said document, the Respondent/Plaintiff issued the Legal Notice as sated above, disputing the Sale Deed by saying that he had signed the same only as a Mortgage Deed.
41. It is a well settled proposition of law that as per Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court has to presume the existence of any judicial or official act, that same has been regularly performed, until the contrary is proved. In such circumstances, the burden is upon the person, disputing the genuineness of a judicial or official act, hence, no one is entitled to raise a vexatious or frivolous plea, which is not acceptable to any reasonable prudent person.
42. In the Legal Notice issued 12 years after the execution and registration of the Sale Deed, the Respondent/Plaintiff has stated that he had been invited to the Sub-Registrar's office and asked to sign in the papers, however, it was thought of by him only as a Mortgage Deed. Admittedly the Respondent/Plaintiff is not an illiterate person. In view of the legal presumption under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Respondent/Plaintiff is estopped from raising such a frivolous and vexatious plea, 12 years after the execution of the Sale Deed, that was acted upon, stating that he had signed before the Sub-Registrar Office, thinking that it was only a Mortgage Deed.
43. It is also not in dispute that after the execution of the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000 by the Respondent/Plaintiff, a portion of the land was given by the Petitioners/Defendants, by way of a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of Kalapatti Town Panchayat, for formation of a public road, as per the proceeding of the said town panchayat, dated 12.02.2010 in Na.Ka No. 1309/2009.Ah, towards formation of thar road and that there was a meeting on 13.02.2010 of the owners of the lands, wherein the State Government had proposed to form the road, for which the Petitioners/Defendants and other land owners were invited for deliberation, as per the said proceeding of the Town panchayat, Kalapatti. In this regard, G.O (2D) No. 19, dated 25.03.2010 has been issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the formation of the road. The said G.O reads the details of lands taken over for forming thar road from various persons. In the Gift Settlement Deed, dated 05.03.2010 executed by the Petitioners/Defendants, details are given that an extent of 10.8 cents in Patta No. 67, standing in the name of the Petitioners/Defendants. The G.O is admittedly a public document, wherein lands belonging to various persons were taken over by the Government for forming the “thar road” and the details have been stated, accordingly, a portion of the Suit land given by the Petitioners/Defendants, by way of Gift Settlement Deed is also stated in the document, which is a part of the Suit property, stood in the name of the Petitioners/Defendants and not in the name of the Respondent/Plaintiff.
44. On 14.07.2010, the Petitioners herein, by way of registered Partition Deed, partitioned the Suit property, that was available with him and subsequently, on 30.01.2012, there was a registered Exchange Deed between one N. Sivasami and the Second Petitioner in respect of a portion of the Suit property. The public documents, such as G.O (2D) No. 19, dated 25.03.2010 would clearly show that there was change of Patta in respect of the Suit property in the name of the Petitioners, on the date of executing Gift Settlement Deed and further, there was registered Partition Deed and Exchange Deed between the Second Petitioner with a third party. These documents would establish that the Sale Deed executed by the Respondent/Plaintiff was acted upon property and various developments have been taken place in respect of the property, by the Petitioners as owners of the property. However, 12 years after the execution of the registration of the Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000, the Respondent/Plaintiff issued Legal Notice, dated 27.07.2012, stating that he came to know only in the last week of June 2012, that it was a Sale Deed, though he was thinking that a mortgage deed was executed by him, which is totally an unreasonable and unsustainable plea. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the Respondent/Plaintiff is estopped from raising such a false, vexatious and frivolous averments in the Plaint against the registered Sale Deed executed by him before the Sub-Registrar for valuable consideration, 12 years prior to the date of filing of the Suit, hence, the Suit filed by him is a clear abuse of process of Court.
45. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not an illiterate person. Even as per his Plaint averments, he had purchased the property on 06.03.1997 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,15,600/- from his Vendors and he has admitted that he had received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Petitioners few months later on 20.06.1997, under the registered Sale Agreement between the Respondent and the First Petitioner. As per the copy of the registered Sale Agreement, dated 20.06.1997, available in the typed set of papers that the Respondent/Plaintiff had agreed to sell 1.48 acres of land out of 1.96 acres of land purchased by him for a consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/- and received Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance and part of Sale consideration. On 06.03.2000, only a portion of the land, i.e, 1.48 acres was sold by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioners, by way of the registered Sale Deed, hence, it is for valuable consideration of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The allegations made by the Respondent/Plaintiff that he had paid interest, considering the Sale Deed as a Mortgage Deed and also paid Rs. 1,00,000/- towards principal, for which even according to him, no receipt or acknowledgement was received by him from the Petitioners/Defendants, hence, the same is a self-contrary, baseless averments, without any supporting materials. It is seen from the admitted documents filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff along with the Plaint, that after executing the registered Sale Deed, dated 06.03.2000, only on 27.07.2012, 12 years after the execution of the Sale Deed, the Respondent/Plaintiff issued legal notice stating frivolous, unsustainable and vexatious averments against his own admissions. Even for challenging the Sale Deed executed by any person, the period of limitation is three years, as per the Limitation Act, which is not disputed. However, it was argued for the Respondent/Plaintiff that the Suit was filed from the date of knowledge, which cannot be accepted, as he was party to the document.
46. It is a well settled proposition of law that oral allegations could not impeach the admitted documentary evidence and that the admission made by the Respondent/Plaintiff himself would show that the Suit filed by him is a clear abuse of process of law and the Court.
47. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on the averments made in the Plaint and the admitted documents filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, it has been made clear that 12 years after executing the Sale Deed, the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the vexatious Suit, stating further that the Sale Deed was not acted upon. The public documents, such as G.O filed in the form of typed set of papers by the Petitioners/Defendants would show that Patta was changed in the name of the Petitioners/Defendants, Gift Settlement Deed was executed in respect of a portion of the land by the Petitioners/Defendants and that was accepted by the Government by way of passing G.O towards formation of the public road and there was registered Partition Deed and exchange deed between the Petitioners and with a third party, hence, it cannot be said that the Sale Deed was not acted upon.
48. It is a settled proposition of law that to exercise the superintending power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to struck off Plaint, this Court should come to a conclusion, that the Suit is an abuse of process of law, based on the Plaint averments and the admission made by the Plaintiff and to decide the same, the provision under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC has also got relevancy.
49. As per Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, when there is no subsisting legal cause of action for seeking the relief sought for in the Plaint or when the relief sought for is statutorily barred or if the deficit Court-fee is not paid on the direction, as date fixed by the Court below, Plaint could be rejected. So far as the non-payment of proper and deficit Court-fee is concerned, it should be decided by the Trial Court, after providing reasonable opportunity, directing the Plaintiff to pay the deficit Court-fee, wherein the Plaintiff is also entitled to challenge the correctness of the Court-fee paid on the Plaint, hence, this Court need not go into the aspect at this stage.
50. The other two points under Order 7, Rule 1, CPC are relating to no cause of action for filing the Suit and the statutory bar under the Limitation Act. Apart from the said grounds, if it is also established that the filing of the Suit itself is an abuse of process of law and the Court, hence, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Plaint could be to struck off, to meet the ends of justice.
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.
54. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is allowed and consequently, the Plaint pertaining to the Suit in O.S No. 920 of 2012 pending on the file of Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, is ordered to be struck off and consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Respondent/Plaintiff is directed to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the Petitioners/Defendants, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, for filing the vexatious and frivolous Suit and committing abuse of process of Court.
Comments