JUDGMENT :

(N.V. ANJARIA, J.)

1. Whether the Commercial Suit instituted by the respondent herein before the Commercial Court, Gandhinagar is founded on legal cause of action rendering the plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is the moot question.

1.1 The following pointed observation of the Supreme Court in T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and Another [(1977) 4 SCC 467], whether stand true in this case is to be appreciated.

“The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.” (para 5)

2. It is in such con