AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—The prayer in this Original Petition is to quash the plaint in O.S. No. 229 of 2012 of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery. The 1st respondent filed that suit against petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent/3rd defendant for recovery of money, damages, etc., and for return of articles. The case in short is that the 1st petitioner married the daughter of the 1st respondent and at the time of marriage, certain payments were made to the petitioners. For the marriage, the 1st respondent had to incur expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Later, the marital relationship between the 1st petitioner and the daughter of the 1st respondent went to trouble. Hence the suit for recovery of money and for return of articles.
The petitioners have filed written statement disputing various claims made by the 1st respondent.
According to the learned counsel, the suit is an abuse of process of the court and hence is liable to be quashed as held by this Court in Tiny @ Antony Vs. Jacky and Others, . The learned counsel submits that the petitioners and the daughter of the 1st respondent have entered into Ext. P2, agreement and if Ext. P2, agreement is accepted by the 1st respondent, that will be an end of the suit. In that circumstance the petitioners and the 2nd respondent may not be directed to undergo the cumbersome procedure of trial of the suit.
True that in the above decision this Court has upheld the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the plaint. In a later decision - Karimbumkara Kunhappu and Another Vs. Karimbumkara Sreemathi and Others, - another learned Judge has pointed out that the power to quash plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution has to be used sparingly in exceptional cases when it is patently disclosed that continuation of the proceeding is nothing but vexatious.
I must notice that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised when it involves disputed questions of fact which has to be thrashed out in the course of trial. True, that petitioners rely on Ext. P2, agreement allegedly executed by the petitioners and the daughter of the 1st respondent. So far as that agreement is concerned, the stand of the 1st respondent, in paragraph 8 of the plaint is that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent cunningly obtained the signature of herself and her daughter in an agreement prepared by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent with an assurance of return of money/articles. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent did not pay the amount, nor did they respond to the repeated requests and demands made by the 1st respondent.
Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioners have an explanation as to the plea raised by the 1st respondent in paragraph 8 of the plaint. According to the learned counsel, Ext. P2, agreement is prepared in stamp paper.
Whether Ext. P2, agreement was executed by the petitioners and the daughter of the 1st respondent and whether the defence raised by the 1st respondent to that agreement in paragraph 8 of the plaint is acceptable or not, are not matters to be decided in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised so far as this case is concerned. If the petitioners are desirous of an early disposal of O.S. No. 229 of 2012, it is open to them to request the learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery for expeditious disposal of the suit. If any such request is made, the learned Sub Judge shall, after completion of the pre-trial steps, dispose of the suit as early as possible.
With the above direction the original petition is dismissed.