2024 (10) TMI 613 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - Prayer for mandatory injunction to direct the petitioner/defendant to return all the blank cheques - permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner/defendant from encashing the said blank cheques by presenting into the bank - to restrain the petitioner/defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 doing their business in the suit property - HELD THAT - On perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Frost International Limited vs. M/s. Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited and another 2022 (4) TMI 195 - SUPREME COURT , relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that it is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, where it was held that ' we hold that while the plaintiff has certain grievances arising from the MoU, against the defendants which may give rise to seek appropriate remedies in law, the aforesaid three declaratory reliefs sought in the plaint are barred by law. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.' This Court holds that if the plaintiffs have any grievance against the defendant, they can seek appropriate remedies in law, but the reliefs sought in the plaint are barred by law. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to strike off the plaint in a civil suit regarding the return of blank cheques and injunction against encashment.

Analysis:
The Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to strike off the plaint in a suit where the plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction for the return of blank cheques and a permanent injunction against encashment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant forcibly obtained the cheques, while the defendant claimed the cheques were given as security for a loan. The defendant argued that the suit was an abuse of process and should be rejected at the threshold, as the plaintiffs failed to prove their contention that the cheques were taken forcefully. The defendant also highlighted a commercial suit where the plaintiffs were decreed to pay the outstanding loan amount, indicating their liability. The defendant relied on legal precedents to support their contention that the reliefs sought in the plaint were barred by law and should be rejected. The court, after considering the arguments and the judgment in the commercial suit, held that the plaint should be rejected as the reliefs sought were not maintainable in law. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the rejection of the plaint would not prevent the plaintiffs from seeking appropriate reliefs in the future.

This judgment dealt with the conflicting claims regarding the blank cheques and the loan transaction between the parties. The court analyzed the contentions of both parties, the evidence presented, and legal precedents to determine the maintainability of the suit. The court emphasized the importance of proving allegations and the legal basis for seeking reliefs in a civil suit. The judgment also referenced a related commercial suit where the plaintiffs were found liable, further supporting the defendant's position. By relying on legal principles and precedents, the court concluded that the reliefs sought in the plaint were not permissible under the law, leading to the decision to strike off the plaint. The judgment underscored the need for parties to seek appropriate remedies within the legal framework and highlighted the consequences of filing suits with baseless or frivolous averments.