In a civil suit plaint is filed before the Court with certain prayers. The prayers sought for by the plaintiff should be according to the law and be grantable. If the prayer in the plaint cannot be granted then such a suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. If in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted as held in DAHIBEN VERSUS ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (D) THR. L. RS. AND ORS. [2020 (7) TMI 786 SUPREME COURT]

The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. A duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.

The Supreme Court, in T. ARIVANDANDAM VERSUS T.V. SATYAPAL & ANOTHER 1977 (10) TMI 116 SUPREME COURT held that reading of the averments made in the plaint should not only be formal but also meaningful. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, and a meaningful reading thereof would show that the pleadings are manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, then the court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Such a suit has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself.

In RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS VERSUS HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS [2021 (10) TMI 249 SUPREME COURT]

The Supreme Court observed that the case of the plaintiffs is that the accounts of the partnership firm have not been finalized and that the share of the profits of the partnership firm has not been paid to them. The defendants are seeking to represent the partnership firm to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and that the defendants are siphoning off funds of the partnership firm. The defendants are seeking to represent the partnership firm to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and that the defendants are siphoning off funds of the partnership firm. The plaintiffs along with the defendants are entitled to the assets and properties of the partnership firm as legal heirs of the original partners of the partnership firm.

The Supreme Court considered the question in this case is as to whether the reliefs as claimed in the plaint by the plaintiffs could be granted or not. The Division Bench of the High Court has elaborately considered the issue. The High Court held that

The partners of a firm are entitled only to the profits of the firm and upon dissolution of the firm they are entitled to the surplus of the sale proceeds of the assets and properties of the firm, if any, after meeting the liabilities of the firm, in the share agreed upon in the partnership deed.
The partners do not have any right, title or interest in respect of the assets and properties of a firm so long as the firm is carrying on business.
The plaintiffs as legal heirs of some of the original partners cannot maintain any claim in respect of the assets and properties of the said firm. Their prayer for declaration of coownership of the assets and properties of the said firm is not maintainable in law.
The second prayer in the plaint is for a declaration that the plaintiffs along with the defendants are entitled to represent the firm in all proceedings before the concerned authorities of the State of Bihar for the acquisition of its Bhagalpur land.
The framing of this prayer shows that this is a consequential relief claimed by the plaintiffs which can only be granted if the first prayer is allowed.
Therefore the prayer of the plaintiffs cannot be granted as per law.

The Supreme Court is in agreement with the findings of the High Court. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the reliefs as sought in the plaint cannot be granted. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.