T Arivandanam v T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467
By Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: 22 Oct 2025
Quick Summary
This case shows how courts should deal with frivolous suits. If the plaint—read fairly and as a whole—does not show a real right to sue, the court must reject it under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the threshold.
- Key idea: No cause of action = instant rejection.
- Method: Use a meaningful, not mechanical, reading of the plaint.
- Goal: Stop abuse of process and save time.
Issues
- What should courts do to curb frivolous and vexatious cases?
- When can a plaint be rejected for want of a cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
Rules
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: If the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court shall reject it.
- Meaningful reading test: Look beyond clever wording; ask if any prayed relief can legally be granted from the plaint itself.
- Early filter: If no relief is possible, dismiss at the first hearing to prevent misuse.
Facts — Timeline
View ImageArguments — Appellant vs Respondent
Petitioner (Tenant/Partner)
- Eviction order obtained by fraud; needs injunction.
- Bias alleged; wants fresh hearing before another judge.
Respondent (Landlord)
- New suit is a sham; same issues already decided.
- Plaint discloses no real right to sue; reject under O7 R11 CPC.
Judgment
View Judgment Image- Meaningful reading: Look at the plaint practically; if it is plainly meritless, reject it.
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Use this power at the outset when no clear right to sue is shown.
- Abuse of process: Courts must be firm with vexatious litigation.
Ratio Decidendi
Pleadings must reveal a real cause of action. If a meaningful reading shows none, the plaint must be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the very start.
Why It Matters
- Saves judicial time by stopping hopeless suits early.
- Protects parties from harassment via repeated, copycat litigation.
- Provides a clear test for trial courts: the meaningful reading standard.
Key Takeaways
- 1 Courts must reject sham plaints at the threshold (O7 R11).
- 2 Apply a meaningful reading—substance over form.
- 3 If no relief is legally possible from the plaint, dismiss at first hearing.
- 4 Curb abuse of process and forum shopping.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “READ REAL, REJECT SHAM.”
- READ REAL → Meaningful reading of the plaint.
- REJECT → Use O7 R11 where no cause exists.
- SHAM → Clever drafting cannot create rights.
3-Step Hook:
- Ask: Do plaint facts, as stated, create a legal right?
- Check: Is any prayed relief grantable in law?
- Decide: If not, reject the plaint at once.
IRAC Outline
Issue
How should courts deal with vexatious suits that disclose no real cause of action?
Rule
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; meaningful reading; dismiss at the outset if no relief is possible from plaint averments.
Application
Repeated, copy-paste suits and interim hunting show abuse; plaint fails to show a real right to sue.
Conclusion
Reject at threshold; discourage vexatious litigation.
Glossary
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Rule that lets a court reject a plaint for reasons like no cause of action.
- Cause of Action
- Set of facts giving a legal right to sue.
- Meaningful Reading
- Reading pleadings practically to see real substance, not wordplay.
- Abuse of Process
- Using court procedures unfairly to delay or harass.
Student FAQs
Related Cases
Rejecting Sham Suits
- Threshold scrutiny keeps dockets clean.
- Meaningful reading prevents forum shopping.
Cause of Action Basics
- Facts must add up to a legal right to sue.
- Reliefs must be legally grantable on plaint averments.
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now