In CS(COMM) 118/2021-DEL HC- Suit without any cause of action is frivolous, vexatious and meritless which has to be thrown out at nascent stage, holds Delhi HC
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna [25-11-2022]
New Delhi, November 28, 2022: The Delhi High Court has clarified that Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars injunction to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings
A Single-Judge bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed the present application instituted under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure preferred on behalf of the first defendant-National Insurance Co. Ltd., for rejection of the plaint.
The Bench was of the view that the claims of the plaintiff raised in the present suit, have already been adjudicated by a Competent Forum i.e in arbitration and the present suit cannot be permitted to continue to raise the same issues afresh.
It was submitted in the application that the plaintiff had filed a suit for Declaration, Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction against the defendants, whereby the plaintiff had sought that the Letter of Repudiation dated November 19, 2015 issued by the first defendant rejecting the Insurance claim of the third Defendant and Statutory Surveyor Report dated August 19, 2014 of the Surveyor/ the second defendant be declared as wrong, invalid, erroneous, null and void.
After considering the submissions, the Court noted that under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
It was further noted by the Court that a suit which is without any cause of action is as much as is frivolous, vexatious and meritless and has to be thrown out at the nascent stage since its continuation would only burden the already overburdened judicial infrastructure and will also result in harassment to the opposite party which has to face the rigmarole of full trial.
In the present case, the relief sought was not in respect of any declaration in regard to the legal character of the status but is purely in respect of the monetary claims which per se are not maintainable. The other relief sought by the plaintiff was Permanent Injunction against the third Defendant to restrain it from continuing with the Arbitration proceedings, the Bench noted.
“S.41(a) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars injunction to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings”, the Bench said while adding that on this ground itself, the relief of Permanent Injunction as claimed against the third Defendant was not maintainable.
The claims of the plaintiff raised in the present suit, have already been adjudicated by a Competent Forum i.e in arbitration and the present suit cannot be permitted to continue to raise the same issues afresh, the Court noted.
Thus, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit are not maintainable and no cause of action is disclosed in the suit. Moreover, this relief has already become infructuous as the arbitration proceedings have been concluded and the Award made on March 16, 2021,the Bench further remarked.
In the present case hence, there was no cause of action whatsoever which was disclosed in the suit, the Court noted while allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Add a Comment
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay up to date on our product, events featured blog, special offer and all of the exciting things that take place here at Legitquest.