A suit for a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting the public can only be instituted by the Advocate General or, with the leave of the court, by two or more persons. A plaint that does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court has inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to reject a suit that is an abuse of the process of the court or is filed with the intention to settle personal scores under the garb of public right.

J.K. Ranka, J.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the trial Court n Civil Suit No. 40/2012 whereby it dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC preferred by the petitioner-defendant No.4.

2. The brief facts of the case is that plaintiff respondent filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant No.4 before the trial Court mentioning therein that the petitioner defendant No.4 has submitted a false affidavit before the respondent defendant No.2 to 4 to get a house or plot allotted to the petitioner defendant No.4. The petitioner had been allotted a plot No.72 in Arogya Nagar, Kota and submitted a false affidavit stating therein that he is having no house or plot. Thereafter, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4, which too had been rejected by the trial Court holding that whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim any relief against the defendant No.4 or not, could not be decided at that stage of the suit.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, disallowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC the defendant revisionist has preferred this instant revision petition.

4. Mr. Ved Prakash learned counsel for the defendant revisionist strenuously argued that the trial Court had fallen in error in disallowing the application of the defendant filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. He argued that Order 7 Rule 11 lays down an independent remedy available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits. He further argued that the language of Order 7 Rule 11 clearly implies and cast a duty on the court to reject the plaint when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the clauses of Order 7 Rule 11 even without intervention of the defendant. He further stressed that the trial court has committed grave error in law in not appreciating that it is not a formal reading of the plaint but a meaningful reading which is required to be undertaken by the court to see whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action or by clever drafting merely an illusion of a cause of action is created. He submits that the plaint averments, taken as a whole does not disclose any cause of action and the plaint is manifestly, vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue and hence is liable to be rejected.

5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents plaintiff supported the order passed by the trial court and submitted that the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim any relief or has any locus standi could only be decided after a complete trial and the trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

6. The law with regard to Order 7 Rule 11 is well defined in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Another, (2004) 9 SCC 512 the Apex Court observed "The idea underlying Order 7 Rule 11(a) is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of a suit. Having regard to the changes in the legislative policy as adumbrated by the amendments carried out in the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts would interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the court's resources being used up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. A litigation which in the opinion of the court is doomed to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass a litigant. [see Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, (1986) Supp SCC 315.

7. In the Case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467 wherein it has been held that we have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process