The court should reject frivolous plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the outset; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice M R Shah, Justice U U Lalit & Justice Indira Banerjee

The SC {Canara Bank v. P. Selathal and others} holds that the suits filed by the original plaintiffs are vexatious, frivolous and nothing but an abuse of process of law and court.   Therefore, considering the law laid down by the SC in the earlier decisions, the suits being vexatious and frivolous, the plaints were rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11   of   the   CPC by the SC in present case.  

Further, held considering the pleadings/averments in the suits and the allegations of fraud,  that the allegations of fraud are illusory and only with a view to get out of the judgment and decree passed by the DRT.  Therefore the suits are vexatious and are filed with a mala fide intention to get out of the judgment and decree passed by the DRT. It was held that the plaintiffs are claiming right, title on the basis of the sale deeds dated 30.01.1996 and 10.03.1997 respectively executed by Shri Kallikutty as power of attorney holder of the original owner. However, according to the averments in the plaints, they have purchased the suit property from their vendor which is factually incorrect.

It was held that the   ritual   of   repeating   a   word   or creation of an illusion in the plaint can certainly be unraveled and   exposed   by   the   court   while   dealing   with   an   application under Order 7 Rule 11(a).    Such proceedings   are   required   to   be   nipped   in   the   bud.

It was also held that specific instances and acts of fraud with evidence have to be pleaded in the plaint. It is further observed that mere statements are not enough. It is further observed that it is not sufficient if just fraud is pleaded and there must be material to show that the fraud is committed. If the suit lacks it - consequences should follow - including rejection of plaint.

In the present case, the   plaints   were vexatious,   frivolous,   meritless   and   nothing   but   an   abuse   of process of law. Both the courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaints in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. Both the courts below have materially erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in them. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the plaint was rejected by the SC - setting aside the orders of the courts below.