Logathal vs Kanagamani
2021 Latest Caselaw 11024 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11024 Mad
Judgement Date : 29 April, 2021

Madras High Court

Logathal vs Kanagamani on 29 April, 2021

                                                            1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATE: 29.4.2021.

                                                         CORAM

                                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                                C.R.P.(NPD) No.994 of 2021

                     1. Logathal
                     2. Baby                                                  Petitioners

                                     vs.

                     1.   Kanagamani
                     2.   Samiyappan @ Saminathan
                     3.   Thulasiyammal
                     4.   Balathandapani
                     5.   Venkidusamy
                     6.   Kuppathal
                     7.   Parameshwaran
                     8.   Sivakumar                                           Respondents

                           Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                     of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 23.3.2021 passed
                     in O.S. CFR No.6179 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Court,
                     Coimbatore.

                               For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Kumaresan

                               For Respondents : No appearance.


                                                         ORDER

The revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff questioning

the order dated 23.3.2021 in O.S.CFR No.6179 of 2021 filed on

11.3.2021.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

2. Two plaintiffs have file the suit against eight defendants.

They had sought eight reliefs. The learned Judge had refused to take

the plaint on record and had rejected the same at that stage itself by

an order dated 23.3.2021. Questioning that order, the plaintiff had

filed the present revision petition.

3. I have invited the learned counsel Mr.Kumaresan to examine

para 17 of the order of the learned Judge. In the said paragraph, the

learned Judge had observed about the lack of materials given in the

plaint. In fact, the plaintiff had sought for partition and separate

possession of the suit properties. They have not stated the date of

death of the original owner of the suit properties viz., Arumuga

Gounder. They have not stated whether the two other sharers

Palaniappa Gounder and his wife Kuppathal were still alive or had

already died. These materials, for the reasons best known to the

plaintiffs, had been withheld by the plaintiffs.

4. Any plaint must be pleaded in a manner where the plaintiff will

feel free to graze the witness box and speak about the pleadings in the

plaint which should not be complicated. It should not be a strain on

the plaintiff when he grazes the witness box. A reading of the plaint

shows that an entirely disjoined series of facts had been given. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

learned Judge placed reliance on T.Arivanandam v. T.N.Satyapal

(AIR 1977 SC 2421) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed an

obligation on the Trial Court to have factual superintendence over the

plaint and to exercise its power to nip it in the bud in case it is

manifestly vexatious and meritless, not disclosing a clear right to suit.

5. I am in complete agreement with the observation of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and also appreciate the fact that the learned

Judge had been vigilant enough to examine the plaint in its proper

perspective and rejected the same.

6. In a later judgment reported in Dahiben v. Arvindhbha

Kalyanji Bhansalai (D) through LRs (AIR 2020 SC 3310), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court had stated that if at all there is no cause of

action for institution of the suit, the Trial Judge should take up the

responsibility of curtailing further progress in the suit.

7. Yet another judgment had been delivered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court relating to the same issue in K.Akbar Ali Vs. K.Umar

Khan and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 238, wherein

the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:-

“5. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the question before the Court is whether the plaint discloses any cause of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

action or whether the suit is barred by any law, on the face of the averments contained in the plaint itself. While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC the Court is not to look into the strength or weakness of the case of the plaintiff or the defence raised by the defendant.

.......

7. In any case, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint requires a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole. As held by this Court in ITC v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal reported in (1998) 2 SCC 70 : AIR 1998 SC 634, clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. Similarly the Court must see that the bar in law of the suit is not camouflaged by devious and clever drafting of the plaint. Moreover, the provisions of Order VII Rue 11 are not exhaustive and the Court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the Court.

........

12. It is patently clear from a meaningful reading of the plaint in its entirety that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the first defendant being the owner of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

suit property, the Power of Attorney being patently invalid. The inter-se dispute between the heirs of the deceased-Defendant No. 1 will not confer any right on the petitioner as his claim is based upon a pre-emption agreement executed by a power of attorney, which does not authorize the attorney to deal with the property of the said defendant.

13. The Division Bench of the High Court has done substantial justice by nipping in the bud, a suit which is ex facie not maintainable for want of cause of action against the defendants or any of them, thereby saving precious judicial time as also inconvenience and expenditure to the parties to the suit.” (Emphasis Supplied)

8. On going through the plaint, it only expresses mere

contention than throwing any light and therefore, there is no clarity in

the pleadings. I am in complete agreement with the learned Judge,

who had rejected the plaint as an abuse of process of law. I find no

reason to entertain the revision petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.

No order as to costs.

9. If at all the plaintiffs come forward with a plaint with some

clarity and establishes a direct relation between the pleadings and the

relief sought and material facts, material dates are also given in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

plaint, the plaintiff may be permitted to re-present the plaint and let

the learned Judge consider it afresh.