Delhi High Court
Rajan Mehra vs Smt Geetanjali Jolly & Anr. on 6 May, 2016
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ I.P.A No.5/2016
% 6th May, 2016
RAJAN MEHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sharad K. Agrawal, Advocate.
Versus
SMT GEETANJALI JOLLY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
I.A. No.5651/2016 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
I.A. stands disposed of.
+I.P.A. No.5/2016 and I.A. Nos.5652/2016 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
2 CPC) and 5653/2016 (under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC)
2. This pauper petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff who is the
divorced husband of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1/wife. I may mention that
the aspect of paupership of the petitioner/plaintiff is being accepted by me only
and since in my opinion no legal cause of action is pleaded in the plaint and
therefore, I allow the petitioner to sue as a pauper and the petition is converted
into a suit.
IPA No.5/2016 Page 1 of 4
3. The subject suit is a suit seeking damages/compensation for a sum of
Rs.2.10 crores. Therefore the suit is a suit under law of torts of the civil wrongs
of the defendants. Defendant no.2 in the present suit is the present husband of the
defendant no.1 and with whom the defendant no.1 married after the decree of
divorce was passed in favour of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff by the
competent court at Gurgaon on 2.8.2013.
4. A reading of the plaint shows that the averments have been made
under the following heads:
(i) Plaintiff was married with the defendant no.1, and defendant no.1
after divorce with the plaintiff got married with the defendant no.2.
(ii) The divorce decree was passed in favour of the defendant no.1 and
against the plaintiff by the concerned court at Gurgaon on 2.8.2013 and which
decree has achieved finality as plaintiff has not challenged the same and the plaint
itself admits to the finality of the divorce decree.
(iii) Plaintiff avers that the defendant no.1 already knew the defendant
no.2 before marriage and after spoiling the life of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 has
now got married to the defendant no.2.
(iv) Defendant no.1 filed proceedings against the plaintiff under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) which were decreed ex
parte. Plaintiff challenged the ex parte Judgment dated 13.12.2012 in the
IPA No.5/2016 Page 2 of 4
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C by filing an application under Order IX
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) but that application also was
dismissed on 8.3.2016. Against the Order dated 8.3.2016, plaintiff has filed an
appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing Mat. App. (F.C.)
no.43/2016 and which is pending.
(v) The plaint also talks of a complaint filed by the plaintiff against the
defendant no.1 under the provision of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) etc whch is said to be pending.
5. For a suit to be maintained on the basis of a cause of action of a civil
wrong under the law of torts it is necessary that what is the wrong or the illegality
which is committed by the defendants in the present suit has to be mentioned and
specifically pleaded. It is only if the defendants are guilty of a civil wrong, then,
the plaintiff has a legal cause of action to file the present suit for damages.
6. The aforesaid heads of facts stated in the plaint do not show as to
how a civil wrong is caused to the plaintiff by the acts of the defendants, more
particularly the defendant no.2 who is the present husband of the defendant no.1.
The fact that divorce proceedings came to be filed and which decree has become
final cannot be a civil wrong for grant of damages merely because the decree is an
ex parte decree. Similarly, a judgment obtained in Section 125 Cr.P.C.
proceedings by the defendant no.1 again cannot be said to be a civil wrong
especially because the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been
IPA No.5/2016 Page 3 of 4
dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiff is still pending. As of today
therefore no cause of action accrues even with respect to the defendant no.1
allegedly obtaining the decree under Section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings by fraud by
putting up an Advocate and that this Advocate who appeared in Section 125
Cr.P.C proceedings for the plaintiff did not appear on the instructions of the
plaintiff and who was the respondent in the Section 125 Cr.P.C proceedings.
7. Clearly therefore the present suit does not contain any legal cause of
action of any civil wrong having been committed against the plaintiff by the
defendants, and once no legal wrong is committed there does not arise any cause
of action for this suit to be entertained, much less for an amount of Rs.2.10 crores
and for which no basis is given by the plaintiff. I may note that the damages are
quantified depending upon the status of a person but no averments exist in the
petition with respect to the status of the plaintiff either by reference to income tax
returns or properties or any other aspects/position which would give a particular
status to the plaintiff to claim damages of Rs.2.10 crores against the defendants.
8. In view of the above, the suit plaint does not disclose any cause of
action for the plaintiff to succeed in the suit for damages of Rs.2.10 crores against
the defendants. Suit is therefore dismissed. Since the suit is dismissed, all
pending applications will also stand dismissed.
MAY 06, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
