1 2025:CGHC:11996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 167 of 2024 • Samir Kumar George S/o Shishir Kumar George, Aged About 63 Years R/o 2, Block No.70a, Nehru Nagar (West) Bhilai, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District-Durg (C.G.) ----(Defendant No.6) ..Applicant. versus 1 - Rashtriya Khanij Vikas Nigam, Karmchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Address-Khanij Nagar, Puraina, in Front Of Hotel Babylon International, Vip Road, Post Ravigram, Raipur, Tehsil And District-Raipur (C.G.) Registration No. 140/90-91, Through President. -----(Defendant). 2 - Uttam Chand Jain S/o Late Takhatmal Jain, R/o 18/34, Kondal Street, Kunditop, Chennai (Tamilnadu) -----(Defendant). 3 - Sampatlal Jain S/o Late Takhatmal Jain, R/o 18/34, Kondal Street, Kunditop, Chennai (Tamilnadu) -----(Defendant). 4 - Dipika Jain D/o Vimal Chand Jain, R/o Vaibhav Nivas, College Road, Gita Nagar, Main Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District-Raipur (C.G.) ----(Defendant) 5 - Divya Jain D/o Vimal Chand Jain, R/o Vaibhav Nivas, College Road, Gita Nagar, Main Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District-Raipur (C.G.) ----(Defendant). 6 - Rajkumar Naidu S/o Shri K.S. Naidu, Aged About 64 Years Then-Liquidator Rashtriya Khanij Vikas Nigam, Karmchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Raipur, And Retired Senior Cooperative Inspector, R/o A-001, AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.03.12 16:33:22 +0530 2 Avenue 144, Near Shri Medishine Hospital, Amlidih, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ----(Plaintiff). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 11/03/2025 1. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the orders dated 09.08.2024 and 27.07.2023 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division Raipur Chhattisgarh and 16th Civil Judge Class-2, Raipur, respectively in Civil Suit No.172A/2023 whereby, objection raised by the applicant that the Respondent No.6/plaintiff has no locus in the absence of any cause of action to file the plaint was not allowed and the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that under the housing scheme Respondent No.1-Society allotted subject land i.e. plot No.A-17 admeasuring area 3200 square feet in favour of one Urmila Singh. As the Society did not comply with the Bye Laws, therefore, invoking the Society’s provision No.43-A the plaintiff herein cancelled the allotment as the construction did not commence within the stipulated period and a cancellation deed was executed on 05.02.2011 and thereafter made a further allotment in favour of Smt. Kavita Gulkari on 18.04.2011 who alienated the land by way of sale deed on 18.02.2015 in favour of Defendant Nos.2 to 5 and the present 3 applicant purchased the subject land from them through a registered sale deed on 07.12.2022 and also obtained a NOC from the Society on 07.11.2022. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that there were various allotments which have been cancelled by the ofÏcial liquidator which were subjected to challenge by the original allottees before competent Courts. One Devashish Panda filed Civil Suit bearing No.59A/2013 before the Court of 4th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur and the said suit has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2018. Despite knowledge of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Society issued NOC in favour of applicant herein, therefore, suit has been filed for declaration of NOC which has been issued by the Society as null and void and also for the permanent injunction against the applicant. In the said civil suit, applicant has raised an objection that the Respondent No.6/plaintiff has no locus as no cause of action accrued to file the plaint which has not been allowed and the application in question was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence this Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that ofÏcial liquidator/Respondent No.6/plaintiff himself has cancelled the allotment of earlier allottees and applicant herein has purchased the subject land from the subsequent allottee. He would further submit that Respondent No.6/plaintiff supported the cause in the earlier civil suit that the cancellation is valid and proper and the appeal preferred by the original allottees is still pending. He would further submit that by mere reading of the plaint, it is explicit that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as in his favour no cause of action accrues and for such proposition, he places 4 reliance in the matter of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal And Another {(1977) 4 SCC 467} and referred Para 5, which reads thus:- “5. 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 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, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, 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 courts would 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 is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) 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." 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that in the matter of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) DEAD Through Legal Representatives And Others {(2020) 7 SCC 366} case law of T. Arivandandam (supra) was relied on and further, principles were reiterated that unless a clear right is made out in the plaint, the law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusion of cause of action. Learned counsel referred paragraph 23.2, 24, 24.1, 24.4 of the judgment in the matter of Dahiben (supra) , which read as under:- 5 “23.2 The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 24. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit. 24.1 In Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam{(2005) 10 SCC 51} this Court held : (SCC p. 60, para 24) “24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.” (emphasis supplied) 24.4 If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal {(2017) 13 SCC 174} held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court.” 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.6/plaintiff would support the order impugned. 7. In the case at hand, plaintiff was ex-ofÏcial liquidator of the Society and he 6 himself has cancelled the allotment of the earlier allottees and the applicant herein has purchased the subject property from the subsequent allottee. 8. Having considered the submission and after going through the averments made in the plaint, also considering the conduct of plaintiff, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file a plaint in the absence of cause of action. Hence, a clear case is made out under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC for rejection of plaint. 9. Accordingly, plaint is hereby rejected. Ordered accordingly. 10. This revision is allowed and impugned orders are set aside. 11.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court forthwith for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash