2008 (8) TMI 967 - SC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of suit for perpetual injunction - Powers of High Court u/s 24 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the two suits on the sole ground that it was proposing to examine a similar issue in the Writ Petition preferred by the original owner of the land? - HELD THAT - It is trite that the rule of pleadings postulate that a plaint must contain material facts. When the plaint read as a whole does not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of action which can be entertained by a civil court, it may be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code. Similarly, a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court has to be considered having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint. Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Ors. 2005 (5) TMI 636 - SUPREME COURT . Having considered the matter in the light legal position, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is true that u/s 24 of the Code, the High Court has jurisdiction to suo motu withdraw a suit or appeal, pending in any court subordinate to it, to its file and adjudicate itself on the issues involved therein and dispose of the same. Unless the High Court decides to transfer the suit or the appeal, as the case may be, to some other court or the same court, it is obliged to try, adjudicate and dispose of the same. It needs little emphasis that the High Court is competent to dispose of the suit on preliminary issues, as contemplated in Order 14 Rule 1 2 of the Code, which may include the issues with regard to maintainability of the suit. If the High Court is convinced that the plaint read as a whole does not disclose any cause of action, it may reject the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. As a matter of fact, as observed by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in T. Arivandandam 1977 (10) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT , if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise its power - under the said provision. And if clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the suit has to be disposed of either by the High Court or by the courts subordinate to it in a meaningful manner as per the procedure prescribed in the Code and not on one's own whims. We have no hesitation in holding that the procedure adopted by the High Court is unknown to law. We are conscious of the fact that the object of filing of the suits could be a dubious and indirect attempt on the part of Tek Chand, respondent No. 4, to derive some undue advantage in connivance with the plaintiffs, yet that was no ground to dismiss the suits summarily. It must be kept in mind that one of the fundamental norms of judicial process is that arguable questions either legal or factual, should not be summarily dismissed without recording a reasoned order. A mere entertainment of the Writ Petition, to which the appellants herein were not parties, even if it involved determination of similar issues, in our opinion, was not a good ground to dismiss the two suits without granting opportunity to the parties to prove their respective stands. Moreover, the scope of the Writ Petition and the two suits also seems to be different. Therefore, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order, is set aside and the two suits and the appeal, dismissed in terms of the said order, are restored to the file of the High Court for fresh adjudication and disposal in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's dismissal of the two suits for perpetual injunction.
2. Jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Whether the High Court followed the proper procedure in dismissing the suits and appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Dismissal of the Two Suits for Perpetual Injunction:

The appeal challenges the High Court's order dated 29th March 2007, which dismissed two suits filed by the appellants for perpetual injunction. The appellants contended that the High Court committed a manifest error by dismissing the suits through a cryptic order without considering the nature and purport of the suits. They argued that the scope of the Writ Petition filed by the original owner of the land and the suits filed by the appellants was entirely different. The relief in the suits was confined to the right of the appellants to use the public road laid on the acquired land, not challenging the acquisition itself. The High Court's dismissal was therefore unwarranted and a misapplication of judicial discretion.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that civil courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. This principle was reinforced by citing precedents such as Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., which affirmed that every person has an inherent right to bring a suit of a civil nature unless barred by statute. The judgment further referenced Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and Ors., emphasizing that the plaintiff is the master of the case and has the right to choose the forum unless specifically barred by law.

3. Whether the High Court Followed the Proper Procedure in Dismissing the Suits and Appeals:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court's procedure in dismissing the suits and appeals was legally flawed. Under Section 24 of the Code, the High Court has the jurisdiction to withdraw a suit or appeal to its file and adjudicate the issues involved. However, the High Court must dispose of the suit meaningfully as per the prescribed procedure. In this case, the High Court transferred the suits and appeals to itself but dismissed them summarily without addressing the appellants' application for recall of the transfer order. The Supreme Court held that this approach was contrary to judicial norms, as it did not allow the parties to present their arguments or evidence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that arguable questions, whether legal or factual, should not be dismissed summarily without a reasoned order. The mere fact that the High Court was entertaining a Writ Petition involving similar issues was not a sufficient ground to dismiss the suits without proper adjudication.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order dated 29th March 2007. It restored the two suits and the appeal for fresh adjudication and disposal in accordance with the law. The High Court was directed to pass appropriate orders on the appellants' prayer for restitution and to consider the merits of the suits and appeals without being influenced by the observations in the Supreme Court's judgment. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.