Provisions Under O VII R11 CPC Not Exhaustive; Frivolous Or Vexatious Litigation Not Allowed To Consume Time Of Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh recently held that the provisions under OVII R11 CPC are not exhaustive and that the courts have the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigation is not allowed to consume their time. The Court further observed that a second application under OVII R11 CPC is maintainable and is not hit by the principles of res judicata.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has been able to demonstrate from the pleadings as well as law that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file such a suit without impleading the original purchaser as a party to the suit, who are still alive. In absence of non-joinder of the original purchaser as a party to the suit, this is also one of the ground on which the plaint ought to have been rejected. The trial court has committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

Facts of the case were that the Respondent/Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and delivery of possession against the Petitioner/Defendant. The Petitioner had filed an application under OVII R11 CPC contending that the plaint did not manifest any cause of action but the same was rejected by the lower court. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed another application for rejection of plaint and the lower court again dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court to challenge the respective order of dismissal.

Opposing the petition, the Respondent argued that the Petitioner had moved a second application for rejection of plaint which was hit by the principles of res judicata, as defined U/S 11 CPC. It was further argued that the said application of the Petitioner before the lower court was misconceived and based on incorrect facts and had been filed with the sole purpose to delay the trial.

Per contra, the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. to argue that his second application under OVII R11 CPC was maintainable. Further relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Desai, the Petitioner asserted that the provisions under OVII R11 CPC are not exhaustive and that the court has an inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigation are not allowed to consume their time.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court observed that the second application for rejection of plaint moved by the Petitioner was not hit by the principles of res judicata since the Respondent had failed to disclose any cause of action in his plaint. Additionally, the Court opined that the plaint suffered from non-joinder of necessary party and the the plaint ought to have been rejected.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the lower court had committed a jurisdictional error by rejecting the second application moved by the Petitioner under OVII R11 CPC. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order, thereby allowing the application of the Petitioner for rejection of plaint. Consequently, the plaint of the respondent stood rejected.

Case Title : Suresh Madan and others vs.Manvendra Singh and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 204

Click Here To Read/Download Order