Fraud pleadings must be specific to bypass recovery-barred jurisdiction and avoid rejection of a plaint.

A civil plaint challenging recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act cannot escape the statutory jurisdiction bar on vague allegations of fraud or collusion; specific material facts and particulars are required to show a genuine cause of action. Where the pleadings are inconsistent with earlier admissions, suppress prior proceedings, and assert belated knowledge despite earlier writ petitions, the suit may be treated as time-barred and an abuse of process. The text states that such deficient pleadings justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 and do not affect the banks' recovery proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint disclosed a maintainable civil cause of action notwithstanding the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, in view of the allegations of fraud and collusion. (ii) Whether the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the grounds of limitation, suppression of material facts, abuse of process, and failure to plead fraud with requisite particulars.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint disclosed a maintainable civil cause of action notwithstanding the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, in view of the allegations of fraud and collusion.

Analysis: The bar of jurisdiction does not operate where serious allegations of fraud are made, but the plaint must disclose real and specific material facts showing such fraud. A plaint cannot be saved by clever drafting or by creating an illusion of fraud and collusion. The pleading here contained only vague and general allegations of collusion, while the plaintiffs' own earlier writ petitions showed awareness of the recovery proceedings much earlier. The allegations were found to be inconsistent with those admissions and insufficient to show a real factual foundation for overriding the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The civil suit was not protected by the pleaded allegations of fraud and collusion, and the jurisdictional objection could not be defeated on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the grounds of limitation, suppression of material facts, abuse of process, and failure to plead fraud with requisite particulars.

Analysis: The plaintiffs had admitted knowledge of the proceedings in earlier writ petitions filed in 2005, yet the suit was instituted only in 2009. The plaint suppressed those earlier proceedings and advanced a contrary case of lack of knowledge. The allegations of fraud were not pleaded with the specificity required for such a serious charge. On a meaningful reading, the plaint disclosed a false and belated case, barred by limitation and amounting to an abuse of the judicial process.

Conclusion: The plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The court held that the suit could not be maintained and directed rejection of the plaint, leaving the banks' recovery proceedings unaffected.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint seeking to avoid a statutory recovery process on the basis of fraud must plead specific particulars and disclose a genuine cause of action; vague allegations, suppression of earlier admissions, and a time-barred claim are sufficient grounds for rejection at the threshold.

---