Order 7 Rule 11| Cleverly Drafted Plaints Creating Illusionary Cause Of Action, To Be Rejected By Courts At Earliest: Reiterates SC
While quashing the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar placed reliance on Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties & Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557 and reiterated -
“… 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”.
*Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC enlists and provides the law on rejection of plaints.*
The matter at hand pertained to a partition deed where after the death of the original land owner, the five children got partitioned the properties under a registered partition deed dated November 3, 1953. All the parties to the registered partition deed acted upon the said partition deed. Thereafter, a further transaction took place through a gift deed dated January 24, 1968. Pursuant to which the successors executed the registered sale deed dated August 24, 2010 in favour of the appellants for a valid sale consideration. Since 2010, the appellants are in possession of the land purchased which now came to be challenged.
Here the Court took note of the fact that the respondents (original plaintiffs) in the present appeal without challenging the partition deed dated March 11,1953 and even the subsequent gift deed dated January 24,1968, had instituted the suit.
Considering it to be "nothing but a clever drafting to get out of the limitation", the bench held, "...If partition deed dated March 11,1953 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".
The bench relied on and cited a catena of judgments of the Court on the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and thus allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.