http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: T. ARIVANDANDAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: T.   V. SATYAPAL & ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/10/1977

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1977 AIR 2421            1978 SCR  (1) 742  1977 SCC  (4) 467

ACT: Civil Procedure Code (Act V. 1908), section 35A, Order  VII, rule 11 and 10-Duties of the court in curbing frivolous  and vexatious cases.

HEADNOTE: Respondent  No.  2 in partnership, with 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 Munsif, Bangalore for a declaration that the order  of eviction which      has  been confirmed right 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 the landlord for giving time for vacating the premises on the basis  that the suit newly and sinisterly filed by the petitioner  would be   withdrawn.  Another  five  months’  time  was   granted accordingly.  But,  the petitioner instituted  another  suit before another Munsif making a carbon copy of the old plaint and obtained   an  ex-parte injunction which  was,  however, 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  temporary  injunction filed by respondent  No.  1,  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. Dismissing the, petition for special leave, the Court, HELD  :  (1) If on a meaningful-nor  formal-reading  of  the plaint  it  is manifestly 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

taking  care  to  see  that  the  ground  mentioned  therein fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the  illusion of a cause of action, it should be 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,  Bangalore 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. 35A of  the C.P.C. [744 E-G, 745 A] 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 brutum fulmen. It may  be  a  valuable contribution  to  the  cause of justice  if  counsel  screen wholly    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, 745 B] 743 [The Court expressed its hope that the Bar Council of  India Would activate this obligation.]

JUDGMENT: 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 by- KRISHNA 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   caricatures  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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 further  time to  vacate.  AR 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 of 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 time 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. 744 The  next  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  making  a carbon  copy as it were of the old plaint and  playing  upon the likely gullibility of the new Munsif to grant an exparte injunction.   The  1st  respondent  entered  appearance  and expose 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  1st   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 :  "I 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  unrepentantly  resorted  to.    From   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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,  be  should exercise his power under Or.  VII  r.  1  1 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 bearing  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 vexatious motives and  altogether groundless.  In any view, that suit  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 contribution 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. 746