K.Muthukumar vs N.Saivadurai
2024 Latest Caselaw 7557 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7557 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2024

Madras High Court

K.Muthukumar vs N.Saivadurai on 8 April, 2024

Author: P.D. Audikesavalu

Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu

                                                                           C.R.P. (MD) No. 594 of 2024

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED : 08.04.2024

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

                                             C.R.P. (MD) No. 594 of 2024
                                                        and
                                        C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 2962 and 2972 of 2024


                1.K.Muthukumar
                2.S.Ramamurthy                                              ... Petitioners


                                                            -vs-

                N.Saivadurai                                                ... Respondent

                PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
                India, praying to direct the District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai to struck off the
                plaint in O.S.No.7 of 2024 pending before the District Munsif Court,
                Thiruvadanai and allow this Civil Revision Petition.


                                   For Petitioners     : Mr. M.Iniyavan


                                                         ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition invoking under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed to strike-off the plaint in O.S. No. 7 of

2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai (hereinafter referred

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

to as 'the Trial Court' for short).

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as by the description in the suit in

O.S. No. 7 of 2024 before the Trial Court for the sake of clarity and

convenience.

3. Heard Mr. M.Iniyavan, Learned Counsel for the Defendants and perused

the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.

4. Before proceeding further, it must be recapitulated here that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the decision in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal

Dharma Paribalana Sabai -vs- Tuticorin Educational Society [(2019) 9 SCC

538)] has examined the question relating to maintainability of a Civil Revision

Petition directly invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the following words:-

“13. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the Code of

Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability

of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely

as a measure of self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of

discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of

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

superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court

ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227

especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided

under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.”

5. In the context of the present case, it must be pointed out that clause (d) of

Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC empowers the Trial Court to reject the plaint

where it appears from the statement made in it that the suit is barred by any law,

in addition to clause (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV of CPC, which reads as

follows:-

“Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.—

(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit,

and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may

be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if

the issue relates to—

(a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or

(b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in

force,

and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement

of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and

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

may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that

issue.”

That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in K.K.Modi

-vs- K.N.Modi, [(1998) 3 SCC 573] has observed as follows:-

“42. Under Order 6 Rule 16, the court may, at any stage of the

proceeding, order to be struck out, inter alia, any matter in any

pleading which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

Mulla in his treatise on the Code of Civil Procedure, (15th Edn.,

Vol. II, p. 1179, note 7) has stated that power under clause (c) of

Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code is confined to cases where the abuse

of the process of the court is manifest from the pleadings; and that

this power is unlike the power under Section 151 whereunder

courts have inherent power to strike out pleadings or to stay or

dismiss proceedings which are an abuse of their process. In the

present case the High Court has held the suit to be an abuse of the

process of the court on the basis of what is stated in the plaint.

43. The Supreme Court Practice 1995 published by Sweet &

Maxwell in paragraphs 18/19/33 (p. 344) explains the phrase

“abuse of the process of the court” thus:

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

“This term connotes that the process of the court must be

used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The

court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will

in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from

being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the

process of litigation. … The categories of conduct

rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of

process are not closed but depend on all the relevant

circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of

public policy and the interests of justice may be very

material.”

44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the

court is re-litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and

contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the

same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier

against him. The re-agitation may or may not be barred as res

judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, 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

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

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 court's 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.”

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in

S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu -vs- Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] has observed as

follows:-

“5. ... The courts of law are meant for imparting justice

between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come

with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often

than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-

grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other

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

unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-

process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains

indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person,

whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach

the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the

litigation.”