A plaint lacking a clear cause of action and seeking negative reliefs can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to prevent vexatious litigation.

This civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2024 in Regular Civil Suit No. 334 of 2023 passed by Tenth Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1/plaintiff Pawan Vachanni filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction impleading the respondent No.2 as defendant through plaint vide Anenxure-

P-1. Thereafter respondent No.1/plaintiff impleaded the present petitioner as defendant Nos.2 and 3 and also amended the relief clause inserting Paragraph 12 (c) in the plaint.

3. Newly added defendants No.2 and 3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC (Annexure-P-3) for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 replied the application through Annexure-P-4 and vide order dated 10.05.2024 (Anenxure-P-5) the application was rejected and this petition is preferred challenging rejection of the application seeking the relief that the impugned order be set aside and and the plaint be rejected.

4. Heard.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff has vehemently opposed the application supporting the order of the trial Court.

6. Perused the record.

7. Before adverting to the controversy, this Court is referring the principle applicable in dealing with the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Relevant para – 28 of Ramisetty Venkatana Vs Nasyan Jamal Saheb, 2023, Law Suit (SC) 452 is being reproduced as below :-

“we are of the opinion that the plaint ought to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law."

7.1 Relevant para – 24.4 of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra), AIR 2020 SC 3310 is being reproduced as below :-

“24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) Signed by: RASHMI NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34260 CR-735-2024

602] held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.

7.2 Relevant para – 5 of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V Satyapal and another, AIR SC 2421 is being reproduced as below :-

“And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr.XI) and must be triggered against them.”

7.3 Relevant para – 20 of Sopan Shukhdeo Sable and others Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, AIR 2004 SC 1801 is being reproduced as below :-

“20. There is distinction between “material facts” and “particulars”. The words “material facts” show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad."

The distinction which has been made between “material facts” and “particulars” was brought by Scott, L.J. in Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd.

[(1936) 1 KB 697 : (1936