Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. SELVAM
M/s. Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited Madurai & Others
Versus
R.Srinivasan & Others
CRP PD(MD)No.463 of 2010 & MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
Decided On : 30-03-2010
Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals. The court can invoke this power to prevent abuse of process of law, miscarriage of justice, and grave injustice. The court can also strike off a plaint if there is no cause of action against a party. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for the rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction based on a sale agreement. The defendants argued that they were unnecessary parties as there was no privity of contract between them and the plaintiff. The court had to determine whether the defendants should be struck off from the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the sale agreement and found that it was executed between the plaintiff and the 25th defendant. The defendants were not parties to the agreement and there was no privity of contract between them and the plaintiff. The court also noted that the inclusion of the defendants in the suit was a grave injustice and miscarriage of justice. The court invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in respect of the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a suit to be instituted, there must be a cause of action against a person. In this case, there was no cause of action against the defendants as there was no privity of contract between them and the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaint filed against the defendants was liable to be struck off.
Result: The court allowed the civil revision petition and ordered the plaint filed against the defendants to be struck off. The court also directed the Principal District Court to take necessary action against the staff for the mistake in numbering the suit.
1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai in respect of the revision petitioners.
2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai praying to pass a decree of specific performance and also for passing perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.
3. In the plaint it is averred that both the plaintiff and 25th defendant by name V.R.Narasimhalu have entered into a sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 and thereby the 25th defendant has agreed to sell the properties mentioned in the schedule for a sum of Rs.63,00,000/-to the plaintiff and on the date of sale agreement, the plaintiff has given a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-by way of an advance and since the 25th defendant has failed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, Original Suit No.3 of 2010 has been instituted for the reliefs sought for therein.
4. In the present civil revision petition it has been contended that the properties mentioned in the schedule in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 are belonged to the first defendant viz., M/s.Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited and subsequently the first defendant has been liquidated as per Company Application No.1503 of 2008 and the same has been confirmed by the High Court in Company Petition No.71 of 1974 and thereafter a liquidator has been appointed and now he is having administration over the same. Further it has been contended that the first respondent/plaintiff is not having cause of action so as to institute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 (revision petitioners). Under the said circumstances, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai is liable to be struck off in respect of the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.
5. Before pondering the rival submissions made by either counsel, it has become shunless to find out as to whether the first respondent/plaintiff is having cause of action so as to institute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. It has already been pointed out that Original Suit No.3 of 2010 has been instituted on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai on the basis of the alleged sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 entered into betwixt the first respondent/plaintiff and fourth respondent /25th defendant.
6. The main attack made on the side of the revision petitioners is that since the agreement dated 20.09.200 has become emerged betwixt the first respondent/plaintiff and fourth respondent/25th defendant, the revision petitioners are totally unnecessary parties and no cause of action has arisen so as to institute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against them.
7. Cause of action means a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. Therefore, it is pellucid that for instituting a suit, there must be a cause of action against a person so as to obtain a remedy in Court.
8. Thespecific case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that he and fourth respondent/25th defendant have entered into sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 and thereby the fourth respondent/25th defendant has agreed to sell the properties mentioned in the schedule for a sum of Rs.63,00,000/-and thereby he received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of an advance.
.9. In paragraph-2 of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000, it is stated like thus:
.Whereas the vendor is seized and possessed of all the piece of vacant land in all measuring 1-82 acres comprised in various survey nu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
