LexT. ARIVANDANDAM versus T. V. SATYAPAL & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 742 T. ARIVANDANDAM v. T. V. SATYAPAL & ANOTHER October 14, 1977 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Civil Procedure Code (Act V. 1908), section 35A, Order Vil, rule 11,and IO-Duties of the court in curbing frivolous and vexatious cases. Respondent No. 2 in partnership, Vlith his minor son the petitioner contested an eviction petition filed by the landlord·respondent No. 1 in respect of the pre- mises where the partnership firm was located, and lost it at the trial, appellate· and revisional stages. 'The High Court gave six months' time to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a suit before the Fourth Additional First class }.1unsif, Bangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction whicli has been confirmed righi upto the High Court and resisted by the second res- pondent throughout was one obtained by fraud and collusion and sought an injunction against the execution of the eviction order. During the hearing of the prayer for further time to vacate the premises filed by respondent No. 2, the learned Judge of the High Court, taking pity on the tenant persuaded th_e landlord for giving time for vacating the premises on the basis that the suit newly and sinisterly filed by the petitioner would be withdrav.'n, Another five months' time was granted accordingly. But, the petitioner instituted another suit before another Niunsif making a carbon copy of the old plaint and obtained an ex-parte injunction which was, ho\vever, got vacated later by the respondent No. 1. An appeal against the said order having failed, the petitioner managed to get an ex-parte injunction once over again in revision from the High Court. At the hearing of the application for vacating the ten1porary injunction filed by respondent No. I, the petitioner submitted that the said learned Judge having decided the earlier revision case should not hear the petition on the plea of bias referring to an affidavit filed by him to that effect. But the learned Judge heard the arguments, went into the merits and dismissed the revision. Dismissihg the petition for special leave, the Court, HEL:O : (I) If on a meaningful-nor formal-reading of the plaint it is n1anifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he (Munsif) should exercise his. power under Order VII rule 11, C.P.C. raking care to see that the ground mentioned therein fulfilled. And. if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it should he nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Chapter X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should 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 (Chapter XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men and must be triggered against them. In the instant case, the suit pending before the First Munsif's Court, Banga .. -lore being a :flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints having no survival value, the court directed the Trial Court to dispose of it forthwith after giving an immediate hearing of the parties concerned and to take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexa- tious motives and is altogether groundless, reminding itself of sec. 3SA of the C.P.C. (744 E-G, 745 Al Observation ~ The pathology of litigative addition ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain stultifies the court process and makes a decree with judicial seals brutuni fulmen. It may be a valuable cohtribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholiy fradulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients and remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice and its society not to collaborate in shady actions. [743 B, C, 74S BJ ----- r T. Al!.IVANDANDAM v. T. v. SATYAPAL (Krishna Iyer, /.) 743 [The Court expressed -its hope that the Bar Council of India would activate A this obligation.] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4483 of 1977. From the Judgment and Order dated 19-7-1977 of the Karnataka High Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 943 of 1977 P. R. Ramasesh for the Petitio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.