Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has reprimanded the practice of filling several Miscellaneous Civil Applications (MCA) for seeking review of the judgment passed in the Second Appeal in the matter of Vasant Nature Cure Hospital & Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust & Ors. V. Ukaji Ramaji-since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Anr.

Background

• The appellants run a natural therapy center in the name of ‘Vasant Nature Care Hospital’ and ‘Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust’.
• Respondent, Ukaji Ramaji (since deceased, through his legal representatives) was employed as a watchman by the therapy center, he was entrusted to take care of the said hospitals and was allotted a room there.
• The respondent was relieved from his duties on account of indulgence in illegal activities.
• Ukaji preferred a regular Civil Suit against the appellant seeking declaration that the suit premises was of his ownership and a permanent injunction was sought for restraining the appellants from interfering with his possession of the suit premises.
• The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, being aggrieved of the said judgment, Ukaji preferred a Regular Civil Appeal before the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural).
• The appeal was allowed and an irrevocable license over the suit property was granted to him which would be terminable only after giving a month’s notice.
• The appellants now preferred the Second Appeal, before the High Court of Gujarat (HC) which was allowed.
• Ukaji expired while pendency of second appeal and his Legal Representatives (Present Respondent) preferred a SLP in SC.
• The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn after recording that the present respondents (legal heirs of late Ukaji) had the intention to file review application before the HC.
• Three years thereafter Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCA) - MCA No. 01 of 2016 was filed in the HC for review of Second Appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
• Four other MCA numbered MCA No. 02 of 2016, MCA No. 01 of 2017, MCA No. 01 of 2018, MCA No. 01 of 2019 were filed one after the other and all were dismissed on ground of want of prosecution.
• MCA No. 03 of 2019 was filed in HC for restoration of MCA No. 01 of 2019, which was allowed.
• Hence, the present matter in the SC.

Court’s Observation

The SC bench comprising of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta while deciding an appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of HC, observed that the HC had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason.

Legal Provisions

Case Law

• Recently the SC in Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb held that a plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action.
  • Order VII Rule 11
    • Rejection of plaint — The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: —
    • (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action.
    • (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.
    • (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.
    • (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
    • (e) where it is not filed in duplicate.
    • (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
    • Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
• Also, Order VI Rule 16 grants the courts power to strike out vexatious pleadings:
  • Order VI Rule 16
    • Striking out pleadings —The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading—
    • (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, of
    • (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trail of the suit, or
    • (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.