Summary
The Supreme Court rejected plaints in two suits seeking to invalidate a DRT decree and prevent recovery against mortgaged property. Meaningful reading showed illusory fraud allegations concerning the partnership deed rather than the guarantor’s mortgage or guarantee, and vague allegations of recent knowledge did not overcome limitation. The statutory appellate route could not be bypassed through these vexatious civil suits. The bank’s appeals were allowed.
Issues
- Whether the plaints challenging the DRT decree disclosed a maintainable civil claim.
- Whether the pleaded fraud and recent knowledge avoided the statutory bar and limitation.
Held
- At the plaint-rejection stage the pleading must be read as a whole and meaningfully, rather than formally. Defence allegations are immaterial, and the statutory conditions for rejection must be strictly satisfied; clever drafting cannot create a real cause of action or circumvent a legal bar. (¶¶ 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8)
- The principal relief directly attacked the DRT decree, for which the recovery statute supplied an appellate mechanism. These suits could not derail that special recovery process by bypassing the available statutory remedy. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The pleaded fraud related to the partnership deed and did not specifically impeach the guarantor’s mortgage and guarantee. The criminal judgment likewise did not determine those instruments, the bank was not a party there, and an appeal was pending. The fraud label was illusory on these pleadings. (¶¶ 7.1, 10)
- The suits followed the mortgage by fifteen years and the decree by seven. An assertion of knowledge only six months earlier, without stating when and how it was obtained, was too vague to avoid limitation. That supplied an additional ground for rejection. (¶ 11)
Result
Both appeals allowed; High Court and trial orders set aside. Plaints in O.S.1269/2010 and O.S.233/2011 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. No costs.