Plaint based on void title deeds and suppressed prior adjudication rejected for no cause of action and abuse of process

A plaint founded on sale deeds already adjudicated as void was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC because it disclosed no sustainable cause of action. The earlier final judgment had held the first sale deed to be bogus and sham and the later sale deed to convey no title, so the suit could not be maintained on those documents. The court also treated the plaintiff company's failure to disclose that prior adjudication, while suggesting the earlier suit was pending, as a material suppression amounting to misleading conduct. The explanation that the company was unaware of its strike off was rejected, and continuation of the suit was held to be an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds that the plaintiff company had been struck off, the foundational title documents had already been declared null and void in prior proceedings, and the suit was instituted without disclosure of those material facts.

Analysis: The suit was founded on title claimed through two sale deeds, but the earlier final judgment between the parties had already held the first sale deed to be bogus and sham and the subsequent sale deed to convey no title. The Court also found that the plaint and accompanying documents failed to disclose that prior judgment and instead suggested that the earlier suit was pending, which was a misleading representation. The explanation that the company was unaware of its strike off was rejected because a corporate entity is expected to know its status through statutory compliances. On these facts, the plaint disclosed no sustainable cause of action and the continuation of the suit would amount to an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The plaint was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the suit could not be maintained by the plaintiff company.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint based on title documents already adjudicated to be void, coupled with suppression of that adjudication and the institution of the suit by a struck-off company, is liable to rejection for absence of cause of action and as an abuse of process under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---