Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(Mad) 671

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGHAM
Union of India, Attomic Energy Division through its Administrative Director, Hyderabad
Versus
R. Karthikai Rajan & Others
Civil Revision Petition No. 559 of 1999 and C.M.P. Nos. 2815 and 2816 of 1999
Decided On :Decided on : 22-07-1999

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V.P. Sengottuvel, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel.
For the Respondents:V. Balasubramaniam, Advocate, V. Srikanth, Government Advocate.

A court has the inherent power to strike off a plaint if it is satisfied that the suit is an abuse of process of court.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - STRIKING OFF OF PLAINT - CIVIL REVISION PETITION - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 80(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - ORDER 39 RULE 3 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - SECTION 38 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963.
Fact of the Case:

The Union of India filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against interim orders passed in a suit filed by respondents seeking an injunction to restrain the Union of India from cutting and removing trees on acquired land. The respondents had earlier filed a similar suit but failed to obtain an interim order. They then filed a subsequent suit before a different court without disclosing the earlier proceedings, leading to the grant of an interim injunction.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had committed fraud by suppressing material facts before the court in obtaining the interim injunction. The court also found that the respondents had no cause of action for seeking an injunction as they had already received compensation for the trees on the acquired land. The court further held that the interim order was passed in violation of Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents committed fraud by suppressing material facts before the court in obtaining the interim injunction? 2. Whether the respondents had a cause of action for seeking an injunction? 3. Whether the interim order was passed in violation of Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondents had committed fraud by suppressing material facts before the court in obtaining the interim injunction. The court relied on the fact that the respondents had failed to disclose the earlier proceedings in which they had sought a similar injunction. The court also noted that the respondents had admitted to their guilt in suppressing the material facts. 2. The court held that the respondents had no cause of action for seeking an injunction as they had already received compensation for the trees on the acquired land. The court relied on the fact that the respondents had agreed to remove the trees at the time of the award and that the trees were valued in the award. 3. The court held that the interim order was passed in violation of Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court noted that the interim order was passed without giving notice to the Union of India and without recording reasons for dispensing with the notice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the interim order, and dismissed the suit filed by the respondents.

Judgment :-

The Union of India, Attomic Energy Division, Hyderabad has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interim orders passed in I.A. No. 7 of 1999 in O.S. No. 2 of 1999 (I.A. No. 127 of 1999 in O.S. No. 32 of 1999), by the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin.

2. Brief facts are as follows: The Union of India had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short as ‘the Act’) during the year 1989 for acquiring 1158 acres of land in Pazhayakayal village, Srivapkuntam Taluk, Thoothukudi District for the purpose of setting up a new Zirconium and Titanium Sponge Plant After due enquiry as contemplated under the Act, possession of the land was handed over to the Union of India and thereafter various awards-were passed, awarding compensation to the owners of the lands. From year 1990 or so, the Union of India was in possession of the property including the trees thereon. It is also stated that the Union of India have commenced the work of setting up of a new plant and raising of a compound wall in and around the lands so acquired. While so, the respondents numbering 15 filed O.S. No. 215 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin for a permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner herein from cutting and removing the trees standing in the plaint schedule property. The Interlocutory Application No. 1054 of 1998 taken out by the respondents was dismissed on 8.1.1999. As against the said order made in the said Interlocutory, Application, the respondents preferred a C.M.A. No. 3 of 1999 before the Principal District Court, Tuticorin on 11.1.1999 but no orders were made thereon.

3. Without disclosing the earlier proceedings, the respondents have filed another suit, O.S. No. 2 of 1999 for an identical relief before the Sub-Court, Tuticorin and since the concerned presiding officer of the Court below was on leave on 12.2.1999, the same was transferred and heard by the District Judge, Tuticorin and the respondents obtained an order of temporary injunction, restraining the petitioners herein from interfering in any manner as to the cutting and removal of the trees standing in the schedule mentioned properties. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order granted by the teamed Principal District Judge, Tuticorin on the ground that the same has been obtained by the respondents herein by abuse of process of Court and as against the mandatory requirement of Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and quite contrary to the procedure contemplated under Order 39 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the orders made and plaint and entertained by the Lower Court are liable to be struck off, since a clear fraud was committed by the respondents in obtaining such an order before the Court below by suppressing the material facts before the Court below.

5. Notice of motion was ordered and the respondents had entered appearance and the matter was heard at length both at the interlocutory stage as well as at the main revision stage.

6. The main question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the plaint itself should be struck off on the ground of suppression of the material facts by the respondents before the Court below?

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents conceded the suppression of material facts in the earlier suit by the respondents before the Court below, while obtaining interim orders. However, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the cause of action in the latest suit is totally different from that of the earlier one and the relief in the earlier suit also differs from that of the relief in the later suit. He further submitted that in the award enquiry, the officers concerned have clarified that the respondents have every right of cutting and removing the trees in the schedule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document