(2) Before the plaint (whether presented by the plaintiff or by a registered attorney in his behalf) is allowed to be filed, the court may, if in its discretion it shall think fit, refuse, to entertain the same for any of the following reasons, namely:-
(a) if it does not state correctly, and without prolixity, the several particulars herein before required to be specified therein;
(b) if it contains any particulars other than those so required;
(c) if it is not subscribed, or subscribed and verified, as the case may be, as herein before required;
(d) if it does not disclose a cause of action;
(e) if it is not framed in accordance with section 33;
(f) if it is wrongly framed by reason of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties, or because the plaintiff has joined causes of action which ought not to be joined in the same action;
and may return the same for amendment then and there, or within such time as may be fixed by the court, upon such terms as to the payment of costs occasioned by the amendment as the court thinks fit:
Provided that no amendment shall be allowed which would have the effect of converting an action of one character into an action of another and inconsistent character:
And provided further, that in each of the following cases, namely:-
(g) where the relief sought is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(h) Where the relief sought is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamps within a time to be fixed by the court fails to do so;
(i) When the action appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any positive rule of law;
(j) When the plaint having been returned for amendment within a time fixed by the court is not amended within such time;
(k) When the plaint is not accompanied by such number of summonses as there are defendants,
the plaint shall be rejected; but such rejection shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
A judge has the power even after the filing of the plaint to grant special leave to join an alternative claim against the lessor for damages and for refund of purchase money.
Appuhamy Vs. Dionis (12 N.L.R. 382)
It is not competent for a judge to reject a plaint after having once accepted it and ordered summons, if the summons had been duly served, he should leave it to the defendant to raise any question as to its legal sufficiency to support the intended action.
Mohideen Vs. Gnanaprakasan (14 N.L.R. 33)
No objection can be taken by a defendant in his answer on the ground of insufficiency on the stamp on a plaint.
Jayawickrema Vs. Amarasooriya (17 N.L.R. 174)
The right asserted and claimed in a possessory suit is the right of perpetual possession of the land in claim as against the defendant. Owing to the impracticability of accurately valuing such a right, the course usually adapted is to regard the right as being equal in possession of the possessor of the land for a year is a fallacious test.
Wickremasinghe Vs. Jayasinghe (18 N.L.R. 84)
Where a plaint insufficiently stamped is accepted by the court and the plaintiff on an objection raised by the defendant, supplied the deficiency of stamp duty.
Held, that the irregularity was cured and that the action should not be dismissed.
De Silva Vs. Hassanally (37 N.L.R. 436)
The value which should be placed on an action in ejectment instituted by an Employer against an overstaying servant or licensee in respect of premises which the latter had been permitted to occupy free of rent is only a nominal value, and not the value of the premises; if, however, the servant was given a month’s notice to quit the premises, the value would be a reasonable amount payable for the use and occupation of the premises.
“The principle that a tenant cannot deny his landlord’s title extends to the case of a person coming in by permission as a mere lodger, a servant or other licensee.”
Ponniah Vs. R. Sellan (55 N.L.R. 116)
Where in an action instituted under the Partition Act, No. 16 of 1951, the plaint, which had already been accepted by the court, was subsequently rejected on the ground of non-disclosure of a party -
Held, that once a plaint is accepted and is not ex facie defective, the court has no power to reject it subsequently under section 7, read with section 4 of the Partition Act No. 16 of 1951.
Vethavanam Vs. Ratnam (60 N.L.R. 20)
In an action for the definition of a boundary of a land, the monetary jurisdiction of the court is determined by the value of the disputed area of land and not by the value of the whole land, the boundary of which has to be defined.
Simon Singho Vs. Theleniya (68 N.L.R. 232)
The plaintiff was a cultivator of a paddy field and the defendants were cultivators of another lying to the south of the plaintiff’s field. The plaintiff having prepared his field for sowing, pulled down the wakkadas in order to drain the water which normally flows through the defendants’ field to the ela in the south. The defendants blocked the pitawana of their field and thereby prevented the flow of water from the plaintiff’s field. This act of the defendants resulted in about 2 acres of the plaintiff’s field being inundated with water which extent of land could not be cultivated during that season thereby causing loss to the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed damages.
Held, the defendants owed no duty towards the plaintiff to open the pitawana of their field to permit water from the plaintiff’s field to be drained in to the ela. The plaintiff had therefore no cause of action under the Lex Aquilia. An act (or omission) would constitute an abuse of rights, if such act is done by a person with the sole or predominant object of harming another, but with no appreciable or legitimate interest to himself. Plaintiff’s action fails as the object of the act of the defendants appears to have been to save their own field from disaster.
Pelis Vs. Arnaashal (1980 (2) S.L.R. 296)
The Plaintiff-Respondent instituted action on the basis of a contractual relationship with the Defendant-Petitioner and averred that there was no dispute regarding title. The Defendant-Petitioner did not dispute the title of the Plaintiff-Respondent. The Plaintiff-Respondent sought to amend his plaint by deleting the averment regarding the question of title and sought relief by way of declaration of title. The objection to the proposed amendment was overruled and the amendment was allowed. The Defendant-Petitioner did not exercise his right of appeal in terms of section 754 (2) within the prescribed time as his Attorney-at-Law had been ill.
Held, that amendment had the effect of converting an action of one character into an action of another and inconsistent character. Such an amendment which alters the fundamental character of the suit is barred by section 46 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Selliah Marimuttu Vs. Sivpakyam (1986 (1) C.A.L.R. 264)
That a right of a party to maintain a proceeding cannot be denied to that party on the ground of insufficiency of stamping of a document unless the law expressly or impliedly provided for such denial.
Sita Rajasingham Vs. Maureen Seneviratne(1995 (2) S.L.R. 69)
It is axiomatic that the plaintiff in any action is precluded from amending the plaint to enlarge the scope of the action or alter the basis thereof although he is at liberty to diminish or reduce its scope through an amendment of the plaint.
Ruberu Vs.Wijesooriya (1998 (1) S.L.R. 58)
1.There is no provision which directs the rejection of a plaint which is not duly stamped or a dismissal of an action on that basis;
2.Where a plaint is insufficiently stamped due to any annexures which have been filed as part and parcel of the plaint, not being duly stamped, the Court cannot reject or refuse to entertain the plaint or dismiss the action, but must necessarily call for the deficiency in stamps.
3.If the plaintiff fails to supply the deficiency in stamps within a time fixed by Court, the plaint may be rejected.
Yousoof Mohamed Vs. Indian Overseas Bank (1999 (3) S.L.R. 278)
The plaintiff-petitioner instituted action against the defendant-respondent to recover a certain sum of money, the plaintiff claimed that this sum of money had been wrongfully levied by the defendant-the Excise commissioner. The Attorney-at-law for the defendant filed the proxy of the defendant and the said proxy was signed as W. N. F. Chandrarathne, the answer filed by the defendant on 2.8.96 stated that the defendant named therein is neither a natural person nor a juristic person and pleaded that the plaintiff cannot maintain the action. Trial was fixed for 4.12.96. after the trial date was fixed the plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to amend the plaint to read as W. N. F. Chandraratne, Excise Commissioner, now known and designated as “Commissioner-General of Excise”. The defendant objected to the amendment, and the Court upheld same.
Court held that, in considering the correctness of the decision one has to be alive to the often quoted maxims - false description does not harm if there be sufficient certainty as to the subject matter or the person and any inaccuracy in description is to be overlooked if the subject matter or person is well known.
W.N.F. Chandraratne filed his proxy and answer, if as pleaded the defendant named is neither a natural nor a juristic person, no proxy or answer could have been filed on behalf of the defendant. Having filed the proxy and the answer the defendant at this stage is not entitled to raise the objection that the plaint is defective.
Names in the caption of a plaint are used only to designate persons but an action is not instituted against names but against persons designated thereby.
“Supreme Court - is a Court of law which should not be tramelled by technical objections and that it is not an academy of law” per Chief Justice Abrahams.
Velupillai Vs. Chairman U. C. Jaffna (39 N. L. R. 464
The object of rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes or shortcomings. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence.”
W. M. Mendis & Co. Vs. Excise Commissioner (1999 (1) S.L.R. 351)
The District Court refused the interim injunction sought by the plaintiff-petitioner on the basis that there is a misjoinder of causes of action under section 35 (1).
It was contended that, as the plaintiff-petitioner sought declaration not only that he is entitled to the land but also further declaration inter alia to invalidate two deeds, it violated the provisions of section 35 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code as in an action instituted in terms of section 35, no other claim or cause of action shall be made unless with the leave of Court, except in cases enumerated therein.
It was held that,
(i)the plaint gives full details regarding the conduct of the respondents to deprive the plaintiff’s right to own and possess the subject matter of the action.
(ii)the plaintiff pleads in paragraph 17 that a cause of action has arisen to evict the defendant and place the plaintiff in possession of the land.
(iii)there is only one cause of action. The prayer for invalidation of the two deeds is consequential to prevent the respondents from alienating the land.
(iv)it is wrong to prevent the alleged actions of the defendants and to invalidate any legal transfers or alienations.
Fernando Vs. Lakshman Perera (2000 (2) S.L.R. 413)
The Civil Procedure Code makes it clear that neither in regular actions (section 39) nor in answers filed under section 75 is there any requirement that the documents should be stamped at the time of presentation. There is no explicit or implied provision for denial of the acceptance of the document presented to Court contained in these aforesaid sections.
Section 46 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code shows that Court is bound to afford to the plaintiff an opportunity to supply the deficiency in stamping.
Thus, it is clear that insufficiency of stamping is not a fatal defect.
Wijeratne Vs. Weeratunge (1999 (1) S.L.R. 332)
No comments:
Post a Comment