Shailendra Singh vs Utpal Rai and Others

Manoj Misra, J.—Supplementary-affidavit filed today, is taken on record. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan for the petitioner.

By the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the plaint of Suit No. 1228 of 2013 (Utpal Rai v. Shailendra Singh and others) filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is a third suit, in a series of suits, instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioner and others, more or less for the same relief. It has been submitted that the first suit in the series was Original Suit No. 1330 of 2012. The second was Original Suit No. 108 of 2013, which was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaushambi. It is the case of the petitioner that upon institution of the second suit, an application was filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint in the second suit, under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., on the ground that in respect of the dispute, earlier suit No. 1330 of 2012 was pending. The application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was rejected against which Civil Revision No. 319 of 2013 was filed before this Court. Before this Court, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that he would withdraw the subsequent suit No. 108 of 2013. Consequently the suit No. 108 of 2013 has been withdrawn. Thereafter suit No. 1330 of 2012 has also been withdrawn. However, after withdrawing the first two suits, the third suit has been instituted, which is not maintainable and its institution amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Pump (Private) Limited Vs. District Judge and Others, so as to contend that where there are several suits seeking similar relief, it is open to the Court to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to quash the proceedings of the suit on finding that it amounts to abuse of process of the Court.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the decision cited by him.

A perusal of the aforesaid decision would go to show that in that case, there were several suits pending between the parties seeking similar relief. In that context, the Court took the view that successive and simultaneous filing of suits for similar reliefs would amount to abuse of process of the court. In the instant case, however, there is only one suit, which is pending between the parties, as on date. Whether the said suit is maintainable or not in view of withdrawing of the earlier suit is a matter, which could be taken up by the petitioner before the court concerned by filing an application, under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

In view of the above, I do not find any good reason to quash the plaint of Suit No. 1228 of 2013 at the threshold. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.