# T. ARIVANDANDAM v. T. V. SATYAPAL & ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1978] 1 S.C.R. 742
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-10-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Petition No. 943 of 1977
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-arivandandam-v-t-v-satyapal-another-7314
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Procedure Code (Act V. 1908), section 35A, Order Vil, rule 11,and
IO-Duties of the court in curbing frivolous and vexatious cases.
Respondent No. 2 in partnership, Vlith his minor son the petitioner contested
an eviction petition filed by the landlord·respondent No. 1 in respect of the premises where the partnership firm was located, and lost it at the trial, appellate·
and revisional stages.
'The High Court gave six months' time to vacate the
premises. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a suit before the Fourth Additional
First class }.1unsif, Bangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction whicli
has been confirmed righi upto the High Court and resisted by the second respondent throughout was one obtained by fraud and collusion and sought an
injunction against the execution of the eviction order.
During the hearing
of the prayer for further time to vacate the premises filed by respondent No. 2,
the learned Judge of the High Court, taking pity on the tenant persuaded th_e
landlord for giving time for vacating the premises on the basis that the suit
newly and sinisterly filed by the petitioner would be withdrav.'n,
Another five
months' time was granted accordingly. But, the petitioner instituted another
suit before another Niunsif making a carbon copy of the old plaint and obtained
an ex-parte injunction which was, ho\vever, got vacated later by the respondent
No. 1.
An appeal against the said order having failed, the petitioner managed
to get an ex-parte injunction once over again in revision from the High Court.
At the hearing of the application for vacating the ten1porary injunction filed by
respondent No. I, the petitioner submitted that the said learned Judge having
decided the earlier revision case should not hear the petition on the plea of
bias referring to an affidavit filed by him to that effect.
But the learned Judge
heard the arguments, went into the merits and dismissed the revision.
Dismissihg the petition for special leave, the Court,
HEL:O : (I) If on a meaningful-nor formal-reading of the plaint it is
n1anifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right
to sue, he (Munsif) should exercise his. power under Order VII rule 11, C.P.C.
raking care to see that the ground mentioned therein fulfilled.
And. if clever
drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it should he nipped in
the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Chapter
X, C.P.C.
An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The
trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing
so that bogus litigation can be shot-down at the earliest
stage. The penal
Code (Chapter XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men and must
be triggered against them.
In the instant case, the suit pending before the First Munsif's Court, Banga ..
-lore being a :flagrant
misuse of the mercies of the law in
receiving plaints
having no survival value, the court directed the Trial Court to dispose of it
forthwith after giving an immediate hearing of the parties concerned and to
take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and is altogether groundless, reminding itself of sec. 3SA of the
C.P.C. (744 E-G, 745 Al
Observation ~
The pathology of litigative addition ruins the poor of this country and the
Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous
and vexatious cases. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain stultifies
the
court process and makes a decree with judicial seals brutuni fulmen.
It may
be a valuable cohtribution to the cause of justice if counsel
screen wholiy
fradulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients and
remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice and its society not to
collaborate in shady actions. [743 B, C, 74S BJ
-----
r
T. Al!.IVANDANDAM v. T. v. SATYAPAL (Krishna Iyer, /.)
743
[The Court expressed -its hope that

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
742
T. ARIVANDANDAM
v.
T. V. SATYAPAL & ANOTHER
October 14, 1977
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Civil Procedure Code (Act V. 1908), section 35A, Order Vil, rule 11,and
IO-Duties of the court in curbing frivolous and vexatious cases.
Respondent No. 2 in partnership, Vlith his minor son the petitioner contested
an eviction petition filed by the landlord·respondent No. 1 in respect of the premises where the partnership firm was located, and lost it at the trial, appellate·
and revisional stages.
'The High Court gave six months' time to vacate the
premises. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a suit before the Fourth Additional
First class }.1unsif, Bangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction whicli
has been confirmed righi upto the High Court and resisted by the second respondent throughout was one obtained by fraud and collusion and sought an
injunction against the execution of the eviction order.
During the hearing
of the prayer for further time to vacate the premises filed by respondent No. 2,
the learned Judge of the High Court, taking pity on the tenant persuaded th_e
landlord for giving time for vacating the premises on the basis that the suit
newly and sinisterly filed by the petitioner would be withdrav.'n,
Another five
months' time was granted accordingly. But, the petitioner instituted another
suit before another Niunsif making a carbon copy of the old plaint and obtained
an ex-parte injunction which was, ho\vever, got vacated later by the respondent
No. 1.
An appeal against the said order having failed, the petitioner managed
to get an ex-parte injunction once over again in revision from the High Court.
At the hearing of the application for vacating the ten1porary injunction filed by
respondent No. I, the petitioner submitted that the said learned Judge having
decided the earlier revision case should not hear the petition on the plea of
bias referring to an affidavit filed by him to that effect.
But the learned Judge
heard the arguments, went into the merits and dismissed the revision.
Dismissihg the petition for special leave, the Court,
HEL:O : (I) If on a meaningful-nor formal-reading of the plaint it is
n1anifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right
to sue, he (Munsif) should exercise his. power under Order VII rule 11, C.P.C.
raking care to see that the ground mentioned therein fulfilled.
And. if clever
drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it should he nipped in
the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Chapter
X, C.P.C.
An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The
trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing
so that bogus litigation can be shot-down at the earliest
stage. The penal
Code (Chapter XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men and must
be triggered against them.
In the instant case, the suit pending before the First Munsif's Court, Banga ..
-lore being a :flagrant
misuse of the mercies of the law in
receiving plaints
having no survival value, the court directed the Trial Court to dispose of it
forthwith after giving an immediate hearing of the parties concerned and to
take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and is altogether groundless, reminding itself of sec. 3SA of the
C.P.C. (744 E-G, 745 Al
Observation ~
The pathology of litigative addition ruins the poor of this country and the
Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous
and vexatious cases. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain stultifies
the
court process and makes a decree with judicial seals brutuni fulmen.
It may
be a valuable cohtribution to the cause of justice if counsel
screen wholiy
fradulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients and
remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice and its society not to
collaborate in shady actions. [743 B, C, 74S BJ
-----
r
T. Al!.IVANDANDAM v. T. v. SATYAPAL (Krishna Iyer, /.)
743
[The Court expressed -its hope that the Bar Council of India would activate
A
this obligation.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 4483 of 1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19-7-1977 of the Karnataka
High Court in Civil Misc.
Petition No. 943 of 1977
P. R. Ramasesh for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered byKRISHNA IYER, J.
The pathology of litigative addiction ruins the
poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.
Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake
litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High
Court on an interlocutory application for injunction.
The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd
respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decrees with judicial
seals brutum fulmen.
The long arm of the law must throttle such
litigative carricaturcs if the confidence and credibility of the community
in the judicature is to survive.
The contempt power of the Court is
meant for such persons as the present petitioner.
We desist from
taking action because of the sweet reasonableness of counsel Sri
Ramasesh.
What is the horrendous enterprise of the petitioner? The learned
Judge has, with a touch of personal poignancy, Judicial sensitivity and
anguished anxiety, narrated the sorry story of a long-drawn out series of
legal proceedings revealing how the father of the petitioner contested an
eviction proceeding, lost it, appealed against it, lost again, moved a
revision only to be rebuffed by summary rejection by the High Court.
But the Judge, in his clement jurisdiction gratuitously granted over six
months'
time to vacate
the premises.
After having enjoyed the
benefit of
this
indulgence the
maladroit party
moved for
furher time to vacate.
All these proceedings were being carried on by
the. 2nd respondent who was the father of the petitioner.
Finding
that the court's generosity had been exploited to the full, the 2nd respondent and the petitioner, his son, set upon a clever adventure
by
abuse of the process of the court. The petitioner filed a suit before the
Fourth Additional First Class Munsif, Bangalore, for a declaration that
the order of eviction, which had been confirmed right up to the High
Court and resisted by the 2nd respondent throughout, was one obtained by 'fraud and collusion'.
He sought an injunction against the execution of the eviction order.
When this fact was brought to the notice
of the High Court, during the hearing of the prayer for further time to
vacate, instead 0£. frowning upon the fraudulent stroke, the learned
judge took pity on the tenant and persuaded the landlord to give more
time for vacating the premises on the basis that the suit newly and
sinisterly filed would be withdrawn by the petitioner.
Gaining tifile
by another five months on this score, the father and son belied the
hope of the learned judge who thought that the litigative skirmishes
would come to an end, but hope can be dupe when the customer concerned is a crook.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] l S.C.R.
The Jlext chapter in the litigative acrobatics of the petitioner and
father soon followed since they were determined to dupe and defy the
process of the court to cling on to the shop. The trick they adopted
was to institute another suit before another Munsif makinQ a carbon
copy as it were of the old plaint and playing upon the likely guilibility of
the new Munsi! to grant an ex parte injunction.
The 1st respondent
entered appearance and exposed the hoax played upon the court by the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
Thereupon the Munsif vacated the
order of injunction he had already granted.
As appeal was carried
without success.
Undaunted by all these defeats the petitioner came
to the High Court in revision and managed to get an. injunction over
again.
The lst respondent promptly applied for vacating the temporary injunction and when the petition came up for hearing before Mr.
justice Venkataramayya, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he
should not hear the case, the pretext put forward being that the petitioner had cutely mentioned the name of the judge in the affidavit while describing the prior proceedings.
The unhappy Judge, who had done all
he could to help the tenant by persuading the landlord, found himself
badly betrayed.
He adjourned the case to the next day.
The torment he underwent is obvious from his own order where he stated
"l spent a sleepless night yesterday."
Luckily, he stabilised himself the next day and
heard
arguments
without yielding to the bullying tactics of the petitioner and impropriety of his advocate. He went into the merits and dismissed the
revision.
Of course, these fruitless proceedings in the High Court did
not deter the petitioner from daring to move this Court for special
leave to appeal.
We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner
for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently 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 Or. VII
r. 11 C.P.C. 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 X C.P.C. , An activist Judge is the answer
to irresponsible law suits ... The trial court should insist imperatively
on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can
be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also
resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against
them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George
Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi :
"It is dangerous to be too good."
The trial court in this case will remind itself of s. 35-A C.P.C. and
take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by
vexatiou·s motives and altogether groundless.
In any view, that suit
'
-
•
-
•
'
..
•
-
I
T. ARIVANDANDAM v. T. V. SATYAPAL (Krishna Iyer, J.)
745
has no survival value and should be disposed of forthwith after giving
an immediate hearing to the parties concerned.
We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the learned Judge of
the High Court by a callous party. We more than regret the circumstance that the party concerned has been able to prevail upon one
lawyer or the other to present to the court a case which was disingenuous or worse. It may be a valuable con!ribution to the cause of
justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that an
advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate
in shady actions. The Bar Council of India, we hope will activate
this obligation.
We are constrained to make these observations and
hope that the co-operation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming to
the Bench for spending judicial time on worthwhile disputes and avoiding the distraction of sham litigation such as the one we are disposing
of.
Another moral of this unrighteous chain litigation is the gullible
grant of ex parte orders tempts gamblers in litigation into easy courts.
A judge who succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases helps
devalue the judicial process.
We must appreciate Shri Ramasesh for
his young candour and correct advocacy.
S.R.
Petition dismissed.
A
B
c