Cause of action v. Lack of Merit
Shubham Budhiraja
Advocate, Delhi High
Court
A filed suit against B
for infringement of his trademark whereas B filed its written statement
along-with application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint for
lack of cause of action. B took the plea because he is a prior user of the mark
and thus there is no infringement. The Trial court dismissed the application. The Hon’ble High Court under Article 227 confirmed the trial's court
order and held that these pleas would be an answer to the suit but not
indicative of an absence of cause of action. There can be no confusion between
the existence of a cause of action and the absence of merit in the suit.
Whether the plaintiff would ultimately succeed or not, cannot dictate the
existence of a cause of action.
(I)
The High Court exercising supervisory
jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh
the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory
jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when
the final finding is justified or can be supported.
(II)
The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of
correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant
abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under
Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no
evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that
no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or
tribunal has come to.
(III)
When the court is dealing with an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC, it is required to look at the averments in the plaint and plaint
alone. The documents filed along with the plaint can also be
considered. However, the stand of the defendant is irrelevant. It has been
reiterated in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366.
(IV)
Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC deals with a situation
where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. What is a cause of action
has been defined in Swamy Atmananda
Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005) 10 SCC 51 and has been reiterated
in Church of Christ Charitable Trust
and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC
706, as being a bundle of facts that are material and relevant for the
decision of the case and which are required to be proved by the plaintiff to be
entitled for reliefs claimed in the suit. In T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, trial courts were
advised to not allow clever drafting to raise an illusion of a cause of action.
(V)
Thus, the Trial Court would be justified in
putting an end to vexatious, frivolous, meaningless and sham litigation. But
this power may be exercised only where the plaint clearly discloses no cause of
action or any of the other grounds contained in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are made
out and not otherwise. This is so as the consequences of such exercise of power are
immediate and decisive and shuts the door of the court firmly upon a plaintiff
who ostensibly approached it for legal remedy.
Comments
Post a Comment