Court rejects plaintiff's suit under Specific Reliefs Act, citing defendant's entitlement as dishonored cheque holder.

The court rejected the plaintiff's suit under the Specific Reliefs Act, emphasizing the defendant's entitlement as the holder of dishonored cheques. The court found the plaintiff's declaratory and injunctive reliefs post-criminal case initiation impermissible and deemed the suit an abuse of court process. Citing the K.K. Modi case, the court held that such actions waste court resources. Consequently, the court rejected the plaint, directing the plaintiff to bear costs and counsel's fees, thus ruling in favor of the defendant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the suit under the Specific Reliefs Act.
2. Entitlement of the defendant as the holder of dishonored cheques.
3. Validity of seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs after criminal case initiation.
4. Abuse of court process in filing the present suit.

Issue 1: Maintainability under Specific Reliefs Act
The defendant sought rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was not maintainable under the Specific Reliefs Act. The court noted that the plaintiff had issued negotiable cheques to the defendant, making the defendant the holder in due course entitled to their benefits. Specific provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, such as Sections 72, 73, 75A, and 84, protect the payee's interest and retain the drawer's liability. Presumptions under Sections 118(g) and 139 of the Act favored the defendant, as the cheques were dishonored, notice served under Section 138, and the plaintiff failed to respond before filing the suit.

Issue 2: Entitlement of the Defendant as Cheque Holder
The court emphasized that the defendant, as the holder of the dishonored cheques, was entitled to their benefits. The plaintiff's attempt to seek a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to the cheque benefits was deemed futile as the cheques had already been used by the defendant before the suit. Granting the declaratory reliefs sought by the plaintiff would deprive the defendant of legal remedies, and the court found the plaintiff not entitled to such relief.

Issue 3: Validity of Declaratory and Injunctive Reliefs Post-Criminal Case
The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs after a criminal case was initiated against him under Section 138 of the Act. The court highlighted that the reliefs sought were essentially to restrain the defendant from prosecuting the criminal case, which was not permissible under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. Granting the injunction would impede the defendant's right to pursue the criminal case, and the court found the plaintiff's claims in this regard untenable.

Issue 4: Abuse of Court Process
The court observed that the plaintiff's suit appeared to be framed to set up a defense during the trial of the criminal case. Filing the suit after the criminal case initiation was considered an abuse of the court process. Citing the K.K. Modi case, the court held that such spurious claims or collateral proceedings waste public time and court resources. Consequently, the court allowed the defendant's application, rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and directed the plaintiff to bear costs and counsel's fee.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the maintainability of the suit, the entitlement of the defendant as the cheque holder, the validity of seeking reliefs post-criminal case initiation, and the abuse of court process, ultimately leading to the rejection of the plaintiff's claims.

---