Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The test for deciding if a cause of action is illusionary involves reviewing the entire plaint for material facts, assessing whether the pleadings collectively establish a real and genuine cause or are merely a clever fabrication ["Usha Rani (Deceased) Through Lr VS Chander Mohan Gautam - Delhi"], ["Pavithra Sagayamary vs Aranganathan - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Usha Rani (Deceased) Through Lr VS Chander Mohan Gautam - Delhi"]- ["Bhagirath Prasad Singh VS Ram Narayan Rai - Patna"]- ["BHAGIRATH PRASAD SIGH @ BACHCH vs RAM NARAYAN RAI @ RAM NARAYAN - Patna"]- ["Pavithra Sagayamary vs Aranganathan - Madras"]- ["Paul Marie Josephine VS Louise Victorine Esperance Lafontaine - Madras"]
In civil litigation, filing a plaint is the first step toward seeking justice, but what happens when the pleaded cause of action seems real on the surface yet crumbles under scrutiny? Many plaintiffs face rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) if their claim is deemed illusory. But how to decide if cause of action is illusionary? This guide breaks down the legal principles, tests, and real-world examples to help you understand this critical concept.
Note: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
An illusionary cause of action is one that appears to give rise to a right to sue but, upon a holistic and careful examination of the pleadings and facts, does not truly constitute a substantive cause of action. It is essentially a false or sham claim created by clever drafting or suppression of material facts, which does not support a genuine legal right or entitlement. Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. VS Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 101Sandeep Polymers Pvt. LTD. VS Bajaj Auto LTD. - 2007 5 Supreme 513
Courts emphasize that a cause of action must be based on material facts that, if proved, support the plaintiff’s right to relief. Mere clever wording cannot mask the absence of a real claim. As observed in key precedents, the entire plaint must be read as a whole; isolated passages or selective reading can create an illusion where none exists. Sandeep Polymers Pvt. LTD. VS Bajaj Auto LTD. - 2007 5 Supreme 513
To decide if a cause of action is illusionary, courts apply several core tests:
In one case, the court noted: It had further been contended that... the plaintiffs-opposite parties have made an endeavour to create an illusionary cause of action, which is not permissible under... Order VII Rule 11. BHAGIRATH PRASAD SIGH @ BACHCHA BABU VS RAM NARAYAN RAI @ RAM NARAYAN SINGH - 2010 Supreme(Pat) 1365 This highlights how suppression of prior dismissals can abuse court processes.
The Supreme Court stresses reading the entire plaint as a whole to check for material facts constituting a cause of action. Fragmentary analysis leads to errors. For example, in T. Arivanandam v. T.V. Satyapal, the court warned against illusions created by clever drafting. Sandeep Polymers Pvt. LTD. VS Bajaj Auto LTD. - 2007 5 Supreme 513
A cause of action comprises facts that, if proven, entitle relief. Suppression, like hiding prior suit dismissals, makes it illusory. In a notable ruling, plaintiffs suppressed a civil revision dismissal, leading to plaint rejection as an abuse of process under Order VII Rule 11. The court held: The court found that the plaintiffs had deliberately suppressed material facts... and the subsequent suit was an abuse of the court's process. BHAGIRATH PRASAD SIGH @ BACHCHA BABU VS RAM NARAYAN RAI @ RAM NARAYAN SINGH - 2010 Supreme(Pat) 1365
Similarly, dexterity of the draftsman whereby the material facts are camouflaged in a cleverly drafted plaint is not tolerated. BHAGIRATH PRASAD SIGH @ BACHCH vs RAM NARAYAN RAI @ RAM NARAYAN
Clever drafting to evade Order VII Rule 11 is a ground for rejection. However, not all strategic pleading qualifies. In K. RAVICHANDRAN vs S. PONNUSAMY - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14166, averments were not deemed clever drafting or illusionary because the plaint, read wholly, disclosed a real cause. The court clarified: These averments cannot be termed to be 'clever drafting' or 'an illusionary cause of action' for the plea of fraud. K. RAVICHANDRAN vs S. PONNUSAMY - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14166
For ongoing breaches, each instance may form a fresh cause, not illusory if properly pleaded. But artificial creation via drafting still fails. Syed Shehzi VS Gajanana Enterprises, Indian Gas Distributors - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 1022
Vague allegations without material facts don't suffice. Courts verify if pleaded facts establish a real cause or mere illusion. Bengal Waterproof LTD. VS Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company - 1997 6 Supreme 139
In another suit for injunctions, projections of rights infringement required evidence, not threshold rejection. Parklands Apartments Association, Rep. By its Secretary VS Headmaster, Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2855
The term real cause of action means actual, not illusionary and invented... by clever draft. Courts nip such suits early. SPN Sathyamoorthy VS M. Prathap - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 3335
Determining an illusory cause hinges on holistic scrutiny: Do the pleadings reveal material facts for a genuine right, or is it a drafting mirage? By avoiding suppression and clever camouflage, litigants uphold judicial integrity. Cases like those under Order VII Rule 11 remind us that courts protect against sham claims while allowing triable issues to proceed.
Key Takeaways:- Read plaint wholly. Sandeep Polymers Pvt. LTD. VS Bajaj Auto LTD. - 2007 5 Supreme 513- Demand material facts. Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. VS Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 101- Reject clever illusions. Durga Projects And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. VS S. Rajagopala Reddy - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 763- Nip abuse early, but permit genuine trials.
Stay informed, plead wisely, and seek professional advice to navigate these nuances effectively.
#IllusoryCauseOfAction #CPCOrder7Rule11 #LegalPleadings
In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find that the cause of action espoused by the respondent/plaintiff is sham, illusionary and patently false. ... The whole purpose of looking into the averments along with documents is to ensure that the plaintiff approaching the Court should not be creating an illusionary cause of action by adopting clever or ingenious drafting. ... I am afraid that, on a careful perusal of the aforesaid averments in the instant matter, it is evident that entire '#HL....
It had further been contended that in view of the above it could safely be construed that no cause of action actually had arisen and by using the word "fraud" upon the Court, the plaintiffs-opposite parties have made an endeavour to create an illusionary cause of action, which is not permissible under ... If real cause of action has not been set out in the plaint rather something illusionary has been stated with a view to get out the scope of Order V....
It had further been contended that in view of the above it could safely be construed that no cause of action actually had arisen and by using the word “fraud” upon the Court”, the plaintiffs- opposite parties have made an endeavour to create an illusionary cause of action , which is not permissible under ... If real cause of action has not been set out in the plaint rather something illusionary has been stated with a view to get out the scope of Orde....
” upon the Court”, the plaintiffs- opposite parties have made an endeavour to create an illusionary cause of action , which is not permissible under law. ... If real cause of action has not been set out in the plaint rather something illusionary has been stated with a view to get out the - 12 - scope of Order VII Rule 11 ... Law is well settled that dexterity of the draftsman whereby the material facts are camouflaged in a cleverly drafted plaint a....
These averments cannot be termed to be “clever drafting” or “an illusionary cause of action” for the plea of fraud. ... Only in the absence of such a cause of action, can the suit proceedings be termed as an abuse of the process of law. The proposition in the aforesaid decisions are well settled law. ... The consequential ground raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that since the plaint averments do not disclose a cause of action, the suit itself....
Every plaint will have a cause of action paragraph. That does not mean that every suit has a cause of action. In fact, Courts have held that cause of action paragraph is unnecessary. A reading of the plaint should disclose the same. My reading of the plaint does not disclose such a cause of action. ... I have to remind myself that I am not entitled to dissect the plaint and to conduct surgical operation to decide whether a #HL_START....
These averments cannot be termed to be "clever drafting" or "an illusionary cause of action" for the plea of fraud. ... By looking into the averments of the entire plaint and in view of my earlier observations that the plaint, when read as a whole, discloses a cause of action, it cannot be said that the averments therein have been made through clever and astute drafting. ... It was also held therein that if a clever drafting of the plaint has created an illusion of a cause of #HL_STAR....
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the averment in the plaint must disclose a real cause of action. A clever drafting and illusionary cause of action cannot be allowed to abuse the process of the Court and such irresponsible suit should be nipped in the bud at the threshold. ... reported in 2017(2) RLW 924 decide on 23.02.2017. 6. Evidently, the plaint in the present case discloses a triable cause of action. On the facts of this case, ....
In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that by clever drafting, the plaintiff has tried to show illusionary cause of action. ... It is also submitted that there is no illusionary cause of action by clever drafting as contended by learned advocate for the applicant. ... Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that on bare reading of the plaint, it is clear that it is the case of clever drafting, which is giving rise to an illusionary #H....
These averments cannot be termed to be “clever drafting” or “an illusionary cause of action” for the plea of fraud. ... There is no merit in the contention that some of the allegations are bereft of material facts and as such do not disclose a cause of action. ... No. 36/97 is on the footing that the averments in the election petition did not contain the material facts giving rise to a triable issue or disclosing a cause of action. ... The election petition as such do....
On the other hand, there may be cases in which the plea made in the plaint itself having the effect of destruction of the plea regarding the cause of action and making such plea regarding cause of action illusory. Only in the former case, the court can reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and not in the latter case. A cause of action alleged in the plaint being illusory different from the cause of action alleged in the plaint being false. Only in such cases, the court has to decide whether the cause of action alleged in the plaint is r....
The term Real cause of action used above refer to an actual, concrete, existing cause of action and do not refer to time off claim, illusionary and invented for the purpose of suit by clever draft which are fictitiously and artificially projected as right to sue. It is settled law that in cases involving illusionary cause of action, the role of the Court is to nip it in the bud.
The most appropriate person to challenge the settlement deed can be Tmt.Sumathi, but she is not the dominant litus in O.S.Nos.374 and 390/11. The plaintiffs do not have any privity of contract in so far as the document which they challenge and seek declaration as null and void since they trace their right through their mother Tmt. Sumathi who acted as power agent of the principal Muniratnam but on the date of said sale, the principal himself had no title over the property. The cause of action as framed by the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.374 and 390/11 are only an illusionary cause of act....
A cause of action alleged in the plaint being illusory different from the cause of action alleged in the plaint being false. On the other hand, there may be cases in which the plea made in the plaint itself having the effect of destruction of the plea regarding the cause of action and making such plea regarding cause of action illusory. Only in such cases, the court has to decide whether the cause of action alleged in the plaint is real or that the plaint has been drafted in an intelligent manner to camouflage an illusory cause of action as a real cause of action. Only in t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
