A suit must disclose a genuine cause of action and cannot be based on illusory claims; prior knowledge of facts bars litigation under the Representation of the People Act.

JUDGMENT :

1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.Heard finally with the consent.

3.Petition is challenging order passed by the learned District Judge-2 Panaji sitting at Ponda dated 17.10.2023, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent.

4.Petitioners are the original defendants in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction. On appearance before the learned trial Court, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint on two folds grounds, firstly that suit is barred by law and secondly that there is no cause of action.

5.Learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 6.5.2022 allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the plaint. Original plaintiff being aggrieved by such order, preferred an appeal before the District Judge Panaji which was allowed by the impugned order.

6.Mr D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that first of all suit filed is a clear abuse of process of law as a declaration claimed therein is barred by law as well as by limitation and so called cause of action mentioned therein is illusory. He submits that contents of the plaint are not facts alone as required and many things have been inserted in it which are unwarranted. He submits that so called declaration as sought by the plaintiff is to declare public documents as obtained by fraud and further restraining the petitioners from producing such documents in mundkarial proceedings. He submits that plaintiff knew about the existence of such documents in the year 2015 itself whereas suit was filed in the year 2021 i.e. beyond the period of three years as far as declaration is concerned. He then submits that suit as framed under the pleading is completely barred under Section 170 of the Representation of the People Act.

7.Mr Naik would submit that learned trial Court after meaningful reading of the plaint, cause of action and the provisions of the Representation of the People Act found that the plaint needs to be rejected. However, the first appellate Court has completely lost sight of the findings given by the trial Court and went on to discuss about the Mundkarial Act which is not at all necessary to be considered. The first appellate Court simply gone by the pleadings wherein some cause of action is mentioned and observed that the suit is within limitation. He submits that these observations of the first appellate Court is not on the basis of meaningful reading of the plaint and therefore, such observations are perverse and require to be quashed and set aside.

8.Per contra learned counsel Mr Surjuse appearing for the respondent would forcefully submit that petitioners who are the relatives of the plaintiff obtained Election Photo Identity Card, ration card and even certificate from the village panchayat by playing fraud on these authorities only to deprive the plaintiff from claiming their bonafide right to purchase the mundkarial house. He claims that the father of the petitioners shifted his residence to Ponda way back and was never residing in the mundkarial house. However, petitioners only with an eye on the mundkarial right clandestinely obtained the documents regarding Election Photo Identity Card, ration card showing their residence as mundkarial house with a malafide intention to deprive the plaintiff his right to purchase the mundkarial house. He submits that there was clear understanding that only the plaintiff would claim mundkarial right over the house which is small structure, however such understating has been now tried to be disturbed by the attempts made by the petitioners when they started to claim their share in the mundkarial house and during the purchase proceedings.

9.Mr Surjuse would submit that by obtaining such document from the Election Officer as well as ration card, the petitioner has played a fraud on these authorities which ultimately going to affect the rights of the plaintiff and therefore h