# RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR v. NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS

- **Citation:** [2023] 5 S.C.R. 589
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-04-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, C. T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramisetty-venkatanna-anr-v-nasyam-jamal-saheb-ors-37094
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. VII r. XI (a) and (d) -
Rejection of plaint - The respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit in
the year 2014 before the Trial Court seeking declaration of title,
permanent injunction and cancellation of various documents -
Appellants-defendants submitted that the suit of plaintiffs was based
on premise that there was an error in partition deed dated
11.03.1953 and subsequent transactions - The appellantdefendants, filed an application under O. VII r. XI to reject the
plaint - Trial Court dismissed the said application - Appellant filed
revision application before the High Court, which was also dismissed
- On appeal, held: By clever drafting and not asking any relief
with respect to partition deed, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent
the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit
which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law - If
partition deed was to be challenged which as such, the plaintiffs
are attempting to do virtually, the suit would be barred by limitation
having being instituted after lapse of 61 years from the partition
deed - Plaint ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory
cause of action and barred by limitation - Judgment of High Court
and Trial Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It appears that the suit is essentially based upon
the premise that there was an error in partition deed dated
11.03.1953 and in partition deed survey number 706/A9 was
wrongly mentioned. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the
plaintiffs that one 'S' (son of original land owner) and other
descendants including the vendors of the appellants never had
any right to effect transaction in respect of land in survey number
706/A9. Deliberately and purposely, the plaintiffs have not prayed
any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953 though
it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that there was an error in
 [2023] 5 S.C.R. 589
589
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
partition deed dated 11.03.1953. It is to be noted that pursuant
to the partition deed dated 11.03.1953, after the demise of the
original land owner, his five children got partitioned the properties
under a registered partition deed dated 11.03.1953. Since 2010,
the appellants are in possession of the land purchased vide
registered sale deed dated 24.08.2010. Without challenging
partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and even subsequent gift deed
dated 24.01.1968, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit
with the prayers which is nothing but a clever drafting to get out
of the limitation. If partition deed dated 11.03.1953 was to be
challenged which as such, the plaintiffs are attempting to do
virtually, the suit would be hopelessly barred by limitation having
being instituted after lapse of 61 years from the partition deed.
[Para 5][596-C-F; 597-A-B]
2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the various
decisions on the applicability of Order VII Rule XI to the facts of
the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the plaint ought
to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII
Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action
and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any
relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs
have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have
tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of
court and the law. [Para 6][599-C-D]
T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 :
[1978] 1 SCR 742; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity
Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137 : [2004] 1 SCR 1004;
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal
(2017) 13 SCC 174 : [2017] 5 SCR 294; Ram Singh
Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364
: [1986] 3 SCR 831 - relied on.
Raj Narain Sarin Vs. Laxmi Devi and Ors. (2002) 10
SCC 501; The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative
Society Ltd. Vs. Government of Palestine and Ors. AI

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR.
v.
NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. VII r. XI (a) and (d) -
Rejection of plaint - The respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit in
the year 2014 before the Trial Court seeking declaration of title,
permanent injunction and cancellation of various documents -
Appellants-defendants submitted that the suit of plaintiffs was based
on premise that there was an error in partition deed dated
11.03.1953 and subsequent transactions - The appellantdefendants, filed an application under O. VII r. XI to reject the
plaint - Trial Court dismissed the said application - Appellant filed
revision application before the High Court, which was also dismissed
- On appeal, held: By clever drafting and not asking any relief
with respect to partition deed, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent
the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit
which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law - If
partition deed was to be challenged which as such, the plaintiffs
are attempting to do virtually, the suit would be barred by limitation
having being instituted after lapse of 61 years from the partition
deed - Plaint ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory
cause of action and barred by limitation - Judgment of High Court
and Trial Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It appears that the suit is essentially based upon
the premise that there was an error in partition deed dated
11.03.1953 and in partition deed survey number 706/A9 was
wrongly mentioned. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the
plaintiffs that one 'S' (son of original land owner) and other
descendants including the vendors of the appellants never had
any right to effect transaction in respect of land in survey number
706/A9. Deliberately and purposely, the plaintiffs have not prayed
any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953 though
it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that there was an error in
 [2023] 5 S.C.R. 589
589
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
partition deed dated 11.03.1953. It is to be noted that pursuant
to the partition deed dated 11.03.1953, after the demise of the
original land owner, his five children got partitioned the properties
under a registered partition deed dated 11.03.1953. Since 2010,
the appellants are in possession of the land purchased vide
registered sale deed dated 24.08.2010. Without challenging
partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and even subsequent gift deed
dated 24.01.1968, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit
with the prayers which is nothing but a clever drafting to get out
of the limitation. If partition deed dated 11.03.1953 was to be
challenged which as such, the plaintiffs are attempting to do
virtually, the suit would be hopelessly barred by limitation having
being instituted after lapse of 61 years from the partition deed.
[Para 5][596-C-F; 597-A-B]
2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the various
decisions on the applicability of Order VII Rule XI to the facts of
the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the plaint ought
to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII
Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action
and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any
relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs
have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have
tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of
court and the law. [Para 6][599-C-D]
T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 :
[1978] 1 SCR 742; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity
Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137 : [2004] 1 SCR 1004;
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal
(2017) 13 SCC 174 : [2017] 5 SCR 294; Ram Singh
Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364
: [1986] 3 SCR 831 - relied on.
Raj Narain Sarin Vs. Laxmi Devi and Ors. (2002) 10
SCC 501; The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative
Society Ltd. Vs. Government of Palestine and Ors. AIR
(35) 1948 Privy Council 207; Subhaga and Ors. Vs.
Shobha and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 466; Nusli Neville
Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557:
[2019] 15 SCR 795 - referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
Case Law Reference
[1978] 1 SCR 742
relied on
para 3.4
(2002) 10 SCC 501
referred to
para 3.8
(2006) 5 SCC 466
referred to
para 4.3
[2019] 15 SCR 795
referred to
para 4.4
[2004] 1 SCR 1004
relied on
para 5.2
[2017] 5 SCR 294
relied on
para 5.3
[1986] 3 SCR 831
relied on
para 5.4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2717
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2022 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRP No.179 of 2021.
Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Agam Sharma, Dharm Singh, Suraj Kaushik,
Nanda Kumar K B, Ms. Akhila Wali, Shiva Swaroop, M/s. Nuli & Nuli,
Advs. for the Appellants.
B Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv., Ms. Tatini Basu, Kumar Shashank,
Bharat J Joshi, Ms. Shreshta Ragasandesh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in
Revision Petition (CRP) No. 179/2021, by which, the High Court has
dismissed the said revision petition and has affirmed the order passed by
the learned Trial Court dismissing/rejecting the application submitted by
the appellants herein - original defendant Nos. 9 & 10 under Order VII
Rule XI of CPC, the original defendant Nos. 9 & 10 have preferred the
present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under: -
2.1 That one Nasyam Jamal Saheb was the owner of 4 acres 16
cents of land in Survey No. 700/A7B and Survey No. 706/A9 of Nandyal
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR. v. NASYAM JAMAL
SAHEB & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, and several other
properties. After the demise of Nasyam Jamal Saheb, his five children
namely, 1) Nasyam Jafar Saheb; 2) Nasyam Dasthagiri Saheb; 3) Nasyam
Ibrahim Saheb; 4) Sarambee; and 5) Jainabee got partitioned the
properties of their father (including 4 acres 16 cents) under a registered
partition deed dated 11.03.1953. The predecessor in interest of plaintiffs
N. Ibrahim Saheb got 1 acre and predecessor in interest of vendors of
the appellants herein Sarambee got 1 acre 16 cents. That thereafter,
Sarambee being the absolute owner of 1 acre 16 cents in Survey No.
706/A9 executed a registered gift deed dated 24.01.1968 in favour of
her eldest daughter Kareembee (mother of vendors of appellants herein)
to an extent of lands measuring 58 cents. That Sarambee vide another
gift dated 24.01.1968 gifted the remaining 58 cents in Survey No. 706/
A9 to her other daughter Ashabee and her two sons Khasimsa and
Abdul Rajak. That thereafter, in the year 2003, three sons of Ashabee
further partitioned the land measuring 58 cents. Each of the sons got
19.33 cents of land each. Similarly, after the death of Kareembee, her
three sons effected an oral partition amongst themselves. Two sons of
Kareembee - Khatif Khaja Hussain and Khatif Noor Ahammed sold
the land in Survey No. 706/A9 to an extent of 58 cents vide two registered
sale deeds dated 24.08.2010 in favour of the appellants for a valid sale
consideration of Rs. 14,52,000/- and Rs. 13,56,000/-, respectively. The
possession of the said land was handed over to the appellants and they
developed the land.
2.2 It appears that thereafter, children of Khatis Khader Basha
(third son of Kareembee) filed O.S. No. 39/2011 before the III Additional
District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal against other two sons of Kareembee
and the appellants seeking partition and separate possession of their
share in the property sold to the appellants herein. The said suit came to
be referred to Lok Adalat and was settled after the appellants herein
paid Rs. 14,00,000/- to the plaintiffs therein.
2.3 It appears that thereafter in the year 2013 Nandyal Municipality
in a bid to lay an 80 feet wide master plan road proposed to widen a 30
feet road to 80 feet. In the said road widening programme, the land of
appellants to an extent of 3.5 cents was affected. The appellants executed
a registered gift deed in favour of Nandyal Municipality for an extent of
3.5 cents of land vide document No. 2474/2013. The Municipality
thereafter awarded transferable development right to the appellants herein
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
to an extent of 283.24 sq. meters. That thereafter, in the year 2014,
respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein - original plaintiffs instituted O.S. No. 35/
2014 and prayed for following reliefs: -
(a) For declaring the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property within
the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule which is in survey
No.700/A7B and 706/A9 of Abdulla Khan Thota Nandyal
Municipal Limits and for consequential permanent injunction
restraining the defendants their men agents successors in interest
and anybody on their behalf from trespassing into the suit property
or from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property in any
manner what-so-ever,
(b) Suit for relief of cancellation of l)Registered Sale Deed bearing
Document No. 124/2008 dated 09.01.2008 executed by D3 to D6
in favour of D7, 2)Registered Sale Deed bearing Document
No.3504/2009 dated 18.07.2009 executed by D3 to D6 in favour
of D8, 3)Registered Partition Deed bearing document No.4624/
2009 dated 31.03.2009 executed in between D3 to D6 in respect
of C Schedule item No.2 and D Schedule item No.2, 4)Registered
Sale Deed bearing Document No.6591/2010 dated 24.08.2010
executed by D1 and D2 in favour of D9 and 5)Registered Sale
Deed bearing Document No.6592/2010 dated 24.08.2010 executed
by D1 and D2 in favour of D10 By declaring them as null and
void documents in respect of the suit property.
2.4 That the appellants herein filed IA No. 369/2014 in O.S. No.
35/2014 praying to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order
VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC. The learned Trial Court dismissed the
said application vide order dated 11.03.2020.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule
XI and refusing to reject the plaint, the appellants herein - original
defendant Nos. 9 and 10 filed the revision application before the High
Court. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed
the said revision application which has given rise to the present appeal.
3. Shri Anand Nuli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case both, the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court has
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR. v. NASYAM JAMAL
SAHEB & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
committed a grave error in not allowing the application under Order VII
Rule XI of the CPC and consequently, not rejecting the plaint.
3.1 It is submitted that as such the suit was clearly barred by
limitation and therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected under
Order VII Rule XI(d) of the CPC.
3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly
appreciated the fact that in fact, the suit was barred by limitation as the
same was instituted 61 years after the execution of partition deed dated
11.03.1953.
3.3 It is further submitted that the High Court has failed to take
into consideration that the suit of the plaintiffs is essentially based upon
the premise that there was an error in partition deed dated 11.03.1953
and therefore, Sarambee and her descendants, including the vendors of
the appellants herein, never had any right to effect transactions in respect
of land in Survey No. 706/A9. It is submitted that the High Court has not
properly appreciated the fact that as such the plaintiffs have cleverly
drafted the plaint and intentionally omitted to seek the relief of rectification
of partition deed dated 11.03.1953 in order to circumvent the law of
limitation. It is submitted that as such by clever drafting the plaintiffs
have tried to bring the suit within the law of limitation, which is otherwise
barred by limitation.
3.4 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of T.
Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, it is prayed that
as the plaint is vexatious and meritless and creates illusion of a cause of
action by clever drafting the same should be rejected at the earliest.
3.5 It is submitted that if partition deed dated 11.03.1953 was to
be challenged, which the plaintiffs are attempting to do virtually, the suit
would be hopelessly barred by limitation having being instituted after a
lapse of 61 years from the partition deed.
3.6 It is submitted that as such the plaintiffs did not have any
cause of action to institute the suit. It is submitted that all the registered
sale deeds and the partition deed alleged to be forming cause of action
of the suit are executed in accordance with the respective parties in
accordance with the rights granted to them/their legal ascendants under
partition deed dated 11.03.1953.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
3.7 It is further submitted that the High Court ought to have
appreciated and/or considered that the present suit is frivolous and
vexatious because the plaintiffs are attempting to re-partition; and unsettle
the title and possession of numerous family members and third parties
like the appellants herein by alleging that there was an error in partition
deed dated 11.03.1953 which was executed by grandparents of parties
with their free will at a point when the parties were not even born.
3.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Raj Narain Sarin Vs. Laxmi Devi and
Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 501 and in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra),
it is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge as well as that of the learned Trial
Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI and consequently,
reject the plaint being barred by the limitation and the suit being vexatious
and illusory cause of action.
4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri B. Adinarayana
Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocate that in
the facts and circumstances of the case neither learned Trial Court nor
the High Court have committed any error in dismissing the application
under Order VII Rule XI of the CPC and in not rejecting the plaint.
4.2 It is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs that as such in the present
case neither partition deed dated 11.03.1953 nor the boundaries of the
properties are in dispute. It is submitted that the dispute is limited to the
wrong survey number mentioned therein with respect to the share of
Nasyam Ibrahim, Sarambee and Jainabee only.
4.3 It is submitted that as per the settled position of law what is
important is boundaries and not the survey number mentioned in the
document. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Privy Council in
the case of The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society
Ltd. Vs. Government of Palestine and Ors. AIR (35) 1948 Privy
Council 207 (para 7) as well as the decision of this Court in the case of
Subhaga and Ors. Vs. Shobha and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 466, it is
submitted that as laid down in the aforesaid decisions that even if there
is any discrepancy in the document the boundary should prevail.
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR. v. NASYAM JAMAL
SAHEB & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
4.4 It is further submitted that as such while considering the
application under Order VII Rule XI and the prayer for rejection of the
plaint, only averments of plaint are material and can be taken into
consideration and any evidence or averments made in the written
statement cannot be considered. Reliance is placed on the decision of
this Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties
and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557.
4.5 Making the above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. We have also gone through the averments
made in the plaint. On going through the averments, it appears that the
suit is essentially based upon the premise that there was an error in
partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and in partition deed survey number
706/A9 was wrongly mentioned. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of
the plaintiffs that Sarambee and other descendants including the vendors
of the appellants never had any right to effect transactions in respect of
the land in survey number 706/A9. However, it is required to be noted
that despite the above, very cleverly the plaintiffs have not sought any
relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953. Deliberately and
purposely, the plaintiffs have not prayed any relief with respect to partition
deed dated 11.03.1953 though it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs
that there was an error in partition deed dated 11.03.1953. It is to be
noted that pursuant to the partition deed dated 11.03.1953, after the
demise of the original land owner Nasyam Jamal Saheb, his five children
namely, 1) Nasyam Jafar Saheb; 2) Nasyam Dasthagiri Saheb; 3) Nasyam
Ibrahim Saheb; 4) Sarambee; and 5) Jainabee got partitioned the
properties under a registered partition deed dated 11.03.1953. Under the
registered partition deed, predecessor in interest of plaintiffs, N. Ibrahim
Saheb got 1 acre and predecessor in interest of vendors of the appellants
Sarambee got 1 acre 16 cents. All the parties to the registered partition
deed acted upon the said partition deed. That thereafter, further
transaction took place and Sarambee executed a registered gift deed
dated 24.01.1968 in favour of her eldest daughter Kareembee - mother
of the vendors of the appellants to an extent of lands measuring 58
cents. That thereafter, two sons of Kareebee who became co-owner on
the death of Kareembee executed the registered sale deed dated
24.08.2010 in favour of the appellants in Survey No. 706/A9 to an extent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
of land measuring 58 cents for a valid sale consideration. Since 2010,
the appellants are in possession of the land purchased vide registered
sale deed dated 24.08.2010. Without challenging partition deed dated
11.03.1953 and even subsequent gift deed dated 24.01.1968, the plaintiffs
have instituted the present suit with the aforesaid prayers which is nothing
but a clever drafting to get out of the limitation. If partition deed dated
11.03.1953 was to be challenged which as such, the plaintiffs are
attempting to do virtually, the suit would be hopelessly barred by limitation
having being instituted after lapse of 61 years from the partition deed.
5.1 In the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) in paragraph 5
while considering the provision of Order VII Rule XI, this Court has
observed as under: -
"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner
for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and
unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found
in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit
now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a
flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The
learned Munsif must remember that 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, he
should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking
care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it
in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly
under Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits."
5.2 In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity Commr.,
(2004) 3 SCC 137 in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed and held
as under:
"11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd.
v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was
held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a
real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something
purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7
Rule 11 of the Code.
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR. v. NASYAM JAMAL
SAHEB & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not
formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless
in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise
the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see
that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting
has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in
the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly
under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467].)"
5.3 In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs.
Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174, this Court observed and held as under:
"7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions
enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to
observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be
exercised by the court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts
which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the
averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading
of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and
meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court
should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the
power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the
threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be
strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as
a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of
action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to
observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any
law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the
contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while
considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint.
Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct
as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred
by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for
rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint
has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier
stage."
5.4 In the case of Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal
Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364, this Court observed and held that when the
suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent
that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of
those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation.
Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Raj Narain
Sarin (supra).
6. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions on the applicability of Order VII Rule XI to the facts of the
case on hand, we are of the opinion that the plaint ought to have been
rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of
CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation.
By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition
deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision
of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but
abuse of process of court and the law.
7. Now, so far as the reliance placed on the decision of the Privy
Council referred to hereinabove and on the decision of this Court in the
case of Subhaga (supra) are concerned, there cannot be any dispute
with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid two
decisions. However, the question is the suit being barred by limitation
and the illusory cause of action.
7.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) is concerned, again
there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid
down by this Court that while deciding the application under Order VII
Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint only are required to be
considered and not the averments in the written statement. However, on
considering the averments in the plaint as they are, we are of the opinion
that the plaint is ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory
cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever
drafting.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the learned
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR. v. NASYAM JAMAL
SAHEB & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI are
unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and are
accordingly, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application
submitted by the appellants - original defendant Nos. 9 and 10 to reject
the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of
the CPC is hereby allowed and consequently, the plaint of Civil Suit
(O.S.) No. 35/2014 is ordered to be rejected. Present appeal is accordingly
allowed. No costs.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs)