2005 (7) TMI 705 - SC - Indian Laws

Payment of ad valorem court fee - Non-disclosure of any cause of action - Whether the trial court and the High Court were right in holding that the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was liable to rejection - HELD THAT - In the present suit the relief indirectly claimed is of declaring the sale deed of 5.5.1953 to be not really a sale deed but a loan transaction. Relief of reconveyance of property under alleged oral agreement on return of loan has been deliberately omitted from the relief clause. In our view the present plaint is liable to rejection if not on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action on the ground that from the averments in the plaint the suit is apparently barred by law within the meaning of Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court does not seem to be right in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action . In our view the trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that accepting all averments in the plaint the suit seems to be barred by limitation. On critical examination of the plaint as discussed by us above the suit seems to be clearly barred on the facts stated in the plaint itself. The suit as framed is prima facie barred by the law of limitation provisions of Specific Relief Act as also under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is a fit case not only for rejecting the plaint but imposing exemplary costs on the appellant on the observations of this Court in the case of T. Arvindam v. T.V. Satyapal 1977 (10) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT . In the result the appeal fails with costs incurred throughout by the respondents to be paid by the appellants. A further cost in the sum of 10, 000 (Rupees ten thousand only) is imposed on the appellant to be paid to the respondents for prosecuting and prolonging litigation up to this Court in a hopelessly barred suit.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the trial court and the High Court were correct in holding that the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was liable to rejection.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiffs appealed questioning the rejection of their plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The High Court reversed the first appellate court's decision, upholding the trial court's rejection.

2. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the plaint did establish a cause of action, contrary to the High Court's ruling. The court examined the contents of the plaint and found it crafted to circumvent limitations and court fees, justifying rejection under Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC.

3. The plaint detailed a loan transaction secured by a registered sale deed, with subsequent promises of re-conveyance. The court noted the clever drafting to avoid limitations and fees, justifying rejection under the law.

4. The cause of action for seeking a reconveyance deed arose in 1987, as per the plaint's allegations. The plaintiffs also mentioned prior legal actions related to the property.

5. The foundation of the suit was the alleged loan transaction disguised as a sale deed, with subsequent promises of re-conveyance. The court highlighted the need for specific reliefs based on the facts presented.

6. The court emphasized that the mutation proceedings did not provide a fresh cause of action and seemed intended to bypass limitations. The suit's foundation remained the alleged loan transaction and re-conveyance agreement.

7. The court noted that the second suit indirectly sought relief already covered in a prior pending suit, potentially violating procedural rules.

8. After thorough examination, the court concluded that the suit was barred by limitations, the Specific Relief Act, and procedural rules, justifying rejection.

9. Citing precedent, the court emphasized the importance of nipping meritless suits early and imposed costs on the appellants for prolonging a barred suit.

10. The appeal was dismissed, with costs to be borne by the appellants, including additional costs for pursuing a meritless suit to the Supreme Court.