Cause of action v. Lack of Merit

-

 



Shubham Budhiraja

Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com

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

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more