T. Arivandandam v T.V. Satyapal (1977)

CPC & Limitation Act · Parties — Joinder, Misjoinder & Non-joinder; Frame of Suit

Facts.

A plaintiff filed a cleverly drafted but essentially meaningless and vexatious plaint that disclosed no genuine cause of action, and used it to prolong proceedings.

Issue.

What should a trial court do with a plaint that is clever in form but discloses no real cause of action?

Held.

The Supreme Court directed trial judges to read the plaint meaningfully, and if it is manifestly vexatious and discloses no cause of action, to reject it at the outset under Order 7 rule 11, rather than allow it to burden the court.

Why it matters.

It is the standard authority on the court’s duty to reject illusory plaints early — a favourite in Order 7 rule 11 answers.

📄 Full CPC & Limitation Act notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All CPC & Limitation Act topics