9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the leave already granted by the order dated 7.9.2000 is liable to be revoked? 2. Whether the pleadings in the plaint against D2 are scandalous and frivolous and liable to be expunged? 3. Whether the plaint has to be rejected against D2 as there is no cause of action? 4. Whether the name of D2 has to be struck out from the plaint? 5. Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favor? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the leave already granted by the order dated 7.9.2000 is liable to be revoked? The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that the resolution dated 27.6.2000 passed by the D1 Bank is null and void, and claimed damages of Rs. 10 lakhs. The plaintiff had previously filed a similar suit in OS. No. 224/2000 before the District Munsif Court, Tuticorin, which he withdrew with liberty to file a fresh suit. However, the plaintiff filed the present suit in Madras High Court, citing the legal opinion given by D2 as a cause of action. The court found that the opinion given by D2 could not constitute a cause of action and that the leave granted on 7.9.2000 was liable to be revoked. The court noted that the entire cause of action was against the Bank, and the plaintiff had added D2 only to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court. 2. Whether the pleadings in the plaint against D2 are scandalous and frivolous and liable to be expunged? The court reviewed the pleadings in the plaint and found that the allegations against D2 were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious. The plaintiff's claims that D2's opinion was malicious and that D2 acted in collusion with D1 to cause loss to the plaintiff were deemed to be without basis. The court held that the plaintiff had no right to question the opinion given by D2, which was a privileged communication between D2 and D1. As such, the court ordered that the scandalous and frivolous pleadings be expunged from the record. 3. Whether the plaint has to be rejected against D2 as there is no cause of action? The court found that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and D2 and that the opinion given by D2 could not constitute a cause of action for the plaintiff to proceed against D2. The court held that the opinion given by D2 to D1 was a matter between the client and the counsel and could not be challenged by a third party. Consequently, the court ordered that the plaint be rejected against D2 for lack of cause of action. 4. Whether the name of D2 has to be struck out from the plaint? Given that the court found no cause of action against D2 and that the allegations against D2 were scandalous and frivolous, the court ordered that the name of D2 be struck out from the plaint. The court emphasized that the inclusion of D2 was solely to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court and to harass D2. 5. Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favor? The court concluded that the plaintiff did not have a prima facie case against D2. The balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff, as the main cause of action was against D1 Bank, whose registered office was in Tuticorin. The court noted that the plaintiff had initially filed the suit in the appropriate jurisdiction but later withdrew it and filed it in Madras High Court on a different cause of action, which was not justified. Conclusion: The court allowed Application Nos. 4371, 4373, and 4631 of 2000, thereby revoking the leave granted to the plaintiff and striking out the name of D2 from the plaint. The court also rejected the plaint against D2 and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court within six weeks. Consequently, Original Application Nos. 855 and 856 of 2000 were dismissed as unnecessary.
|
