Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Mrs. Kalithai and Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
P. Karunanidhi and Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. PD No. 3007 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 02-06-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. N.C. Ramesh for Mr. N. Damodaran
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Anand
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the omission to mention material facts in a pleading renders it bad and amounts to a cause of action for the suit. Additionally, the Court emphasized its discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint in cases of clear abuse of process of court.
Headnote:
Suppression of Material Fact - Civil Revision Petition - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Order 5 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 9 CPC - The Full Bench judgment of this Court in 2006 (4) CTC 805 categorically held that omission to mention even any one of the material fact would render the pleading bad and amount to their being no pleading or cause of action for the suit. The plaint is liable to be rejected for not complying with Order 5 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 9 CPC. The Court has extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the plaint presented before the lower court is clear abuse of process of court.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was returned by the Court on the ground that the properties did not fall within its jurisdiction. The first respondent re-presented the suit before the District Court, making additions and including new prayers. The petitioners filed an application to reject the plaint, alleging suppression of material facts and misrepresentation. The Court dismissed the application, leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaint was liable to be rejected for suppression of material facts and non-compliance with Order 5 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 9 CPC. The Court also held that it had extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the plaint presented before the lower court is a clear abuse of process of court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the suppression of material facts, misrepresentation, and non-compliance with procedural rules, leading to the application for rejection of the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the Full Bench judgment of the Court, which held that omission to mention material facts would render the pleading bad. Additionally, the Court relied on provisions of Order 5 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 9, and Order 7 Rule 11 (f) CPC to support the rejection of the plaint. The Court also emphasized its discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint in cases of clear abuse of process of court.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the order of the learned Judge was set aside. The Court held that the learned Judge had not properly exercised the power conferred on him and had not properly appreciated the provisions of Order 5 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 9, and Order 7 Rule 11 (f) CPC.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and final order dated 05.06.2015 made in I.A.No.443 of 2013 in O.S.No.61 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Kancheepurram District at Chengalpattu.
2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 & 6, first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 5 are defendants 2 to 5 in the suit in O.S.No.61 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Kancheepurram District at Chengalpattu. The 1st respondent originally filed suit in C.S.No.141 of 2011 on the file of this Court for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.12.2007 and 20.05.2009 or in alternative, directing the petitioners and respondents 2 & 3 to repay the advance amount of Rs.71,00,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum and to grant a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and respondents 2 to 6 from anyway alienating, dealing or encumbering the suit property to any 3rd party/parties. The plaint in C.S.No.141 of 2011 was returned by this Court on the ground that the suit properties does not fall within the original territorial jurisdiction of this court and therefore the suit is not competent in this Court Consequently, the plaint is ordered to be returned to the first respondent/plaintiff for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction.
3. On 14.02.2013, the learned counsel for the first respondent took the return from the Registry of this Court and on 15.02.2013, re-presented the same before the District Court of Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu. The Registrar of the District Court returned the plaint on 19.02.2013 for compliance of various defects pointed out therein. On 18.03.2013, the first respondent re-presented the plaint adding two reliefs, claiming Rs.40 lakhs each being cost of construction of compound wall and medical bill paid for the medical expenses of Mr. T.K. Pandithurai who is the owner of the property. The first respondent also re-presented the original plaint returned by this Court. After various returns, suit was numbered as O.S.No.61 of 2013. From the summons and copy of the plaint served on the petitioners, it is seen that the new plaint has been presented before the District Court, Kancheepuram at Chengalpat with new averments and new reliefs. The new averments and new reliefs were not found in the original plaint served on the petitioners by this Court while C.S.No.141 of 2011 was pending before this Court.
4. In view of the above facts, the petitioners filed I.A.No.443 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. According to the petitioners, the first respondent has suppressed various material facts, i.e. Cancellation of Power of Attorney executed by the owner T.K. Pandithurai. The first respondent was informed about the cancellation of Power of Attorney, in the reply notice dated 03.09.2009. Further, T.K. Pandithurai, owner of the property and the second respondent Power of Attorney have sent separate replies to the notice issued by the first respondent. The first respondent has stated that both T.K. Pandithurai and the second respondent Power of Attorney have sent common reply. These facts amounts to suppression of materials facts. The suit presented before the District Court is barred by limitation. The first respond, in Para 19 (B) of the new plaint stated that the order of this Court dated 21.01.2013 was filed alongwith the plaint but no such order was filed alongwith the plaint. This Court has returned the plaint in C.S.No.141 of 2011 to be re-presented in competent court. After taking return of the plaint, the first respondent has to re-present the same before the competent court and proceed with his case based on the averments made in the plaint. It is not open to the petitioners to amend the plaint by adding new averments and new relief or delete the averments already made without leave of the Court.
5. The first respondent filed counter and denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of
