A plaint must disclose a cause of action to proceed in court, and mere claims of vagueness do not suffice for rejection, emphasizing the need for thorough examination of the allegations at trial.

JUDGMENT :

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

1. Unsuccessful 3rd defendant has preferred the Original Side Appeal against the order passed in A.No.4559 of 2021 in C.S.No.185 of 2014 dated 09.12.2021.

2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff Mahendra Singh Dhoni has filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No.185 of 2014 before this Court against Zee Media Corporation Limited (Zee News Channel)/1st defendant, M/s.Sudhir Chaudhary/2nd defendant, Mr.G.Sampath Kumar IPS/3rd defendant and M/s.News Nation Network Pvt. Ltd.,/4th defendant, seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4, their associates, sister concerns, agents, representatives, correspondents, officers, employees and/or any other person entity, in print or electronic media or via internet or otherwise from publishing, republishing, carrying out any reports or articles or telecasts or repeat telecasts or programs or debates or any discussion or reporting or publishing in any other manner, any other matter of any kind directly or indirectly pertaining to the alleged report of the 3rd defendant or any matter incidental thereto or any other matter related to the said alleged statement and/or any news content relating the plaintiff to acts of betting, spot fixing and match fixing of cricket matches or in any manner insinuating or denigrating the integrity and honesty of the plaintiff as a cricketer except the publication or news of the exact judicial order, if any, passed by the Hon'ble Courts

(b) Damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and other consequential reliefs.

3. The defendants have filed their written statement, necessary issues were framed and the trial was also scheduled to commence on 01.12.2021. At that stage, the 3rd defendant has filed an application in A.No.4559 of 2021 in C.S.No.185 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action against the the appellant/3rd defendant.

4. Upon hearing either side, the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 09.12.2021, dismissed the application with the following observations:

“5.1. In this case issues were framed and the trial was scheduled to commence on 01.12.2021. It appears that this applicant has suddenly woken up to the existence of a procedural right to seek rejection of the plaint, perhaps on a belated dawning of enlightenment, applies for it. Why has he not filed it earlier?

5.2. This now takes this Court to consider the merits of the averments. The counsel for the applicant required this Court to appreciate that the 3rd defendant, who has been departmentally proceeded against viz-a-viz the investigation of that which later led to the cause of action for filing litigation, has been now exonerated. This may, at best, be a defence in the suit, but still is not worthy of seeking rejection of the plaint.

6.1. It is essential to remember that the Courts are not guided by an automated psyche to patronise litigant's irresponsibility in using or misusing a procedural facility, and to tacitly encourage laying any procedural obstruction on the road to justice. Courts have a duty not just to the litigants but to the countrymen. Hence, the Courts are required to remind themselves constantly that in a performance audit by the countrymen the Court will stand alone to defend themselves without a defence for the delay in disposal of cases and pendency in litigations, unaided by any of the litigants or their counsel. Courts therefore, has a duty to balance the procedural right by the countrymen the Court will stand alone to defend themselves without a defence for the delay in disposal of cases and pendency in litigations, unaided by any of the litigants or their counsel. Courts therefore, has a duty to balance the procedural right of the litigant with its own duty to