LAXMIBEN MAFATLAL PATEL
JAYANTIBHAI MAFATBHAI PATEL & 10
Para 28: The well-accepted cannons of civil jurisprudence make a clear distinction between “plaintiff has no cause of action” and “the plaint does not disclose the cause of action” in the earlier part, there is the complete absence of a right to sue. While in the latter, the right to sue may exist, but it is not well-founded on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. The plaint lacks essential and material particulars which would give an effective cause of action to the plaintiff. Where on the face of it, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, the plaint may be liable to be rejected, but where the parties are to produce oral and documentary evidence to substantiate and support their cause of action and relief claimed for, in the plaint, the court has to consider the entire material placed on record and the suit would be liable to be decided on merit.
Para 32: Thus, if 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, the Trial Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code taking care to see that the grounds mentioned therein are fulfilled. If clever drafting like the one in the case on hand has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. In my view, the aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the conduct of the plaintiff herein.
Para 40: Thus, the cause of action has a well-defined legal connotation, though not defined, which means a bundle of essential facts, if traversed, has to be proved by the plaintiff to entitle him to the relief. It reflects the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favor. It does not comprise every piece of evidence that is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact which is necessary to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to the decree. The consistent legal position which is also mandatorily enacted by Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code is, that the court must reject the plaint which does not disclose the cause of action. Obviously, there is a difference between the nondisclosure of the cause of action in the plaint and the absence of cause of action for the suit.