(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code read with Order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules for issuing mandatory direction directing the 1st defendant to take/initiate action against the 2nd defendant from misusing his name without his consent, permission like; he did in C.S.No.598 of 2014 within a stipulated period of 4 weeks and in the event of failure to do so, declare that there is collusion between them and to impose cost.)

The suit has been filed for issuing mandatory direction directing the 1st defendant to take/initiate action against the 2nd defendant from misusing his name without his consent, permission like; he did in C.S.No.598 of 2014 within a stipulated period of four weeks and in the event of failure to do so, declare that there is collusion between them and to impose cost.

2. The plaintiffs case in nutshell is as follows:

The Plaintiff is party in person and said to be a film financier advancing amounts to various persons. The 1st defendant is the very famous actor not only in the State but also in the country known as "Super Star Rajnikanth". The 2nd Defendant is R.Krishnamurthy @ Kasthuri Raja whose son married the 1st Defendant daughter. The 2nd defendant is also in the production side of the Cinema. He has approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.40 lakhs on 02.01.2012 and executed a pro-note. On 13.07.2012 he again approached the plaintiff for a further loan of Rs.25 lakhs. The plaintiff has informed his inability to pay further as he had already borrowed Rs.40 lakhs. At that time the 2nd defendant represented that his son Dhanush is also a famous actor, he has married the daughter of 1st defendant and now Super Star is his sammandhi and further added that even if the 2nd defendant is not able to pay the amount either his son or 1st defendant will repay the amount. In this regard he has also given anundertaking and received a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. Thereafter, the 2nd defendant could not pay the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.411 of 2013 and C.C.No.473 of 2013.

3. It is the main contention of the plaintiff that he advanced the amount on bonafide impression that the 1st defendant’s consent was obtained by the 2nd defendant while making such an undertaking and borrowing the money. Therefore, he gave a complaint in the year 2012 to enquire whether the 1st defendant’s consent was obtained while giving such an undertaking. However, the above complaint was closed. Thereafter, he has also filed Crl.O.P.in this court for seeking investigation. That petition was also dismissed by this Court. In the meanwhile, the 1stdefendant has filed the suit in C.S.598 of 2014 against one M/s.Varsha Productions for misusing his name and got an injunction. The above news was widely published in the newspaper and on came to know the above facts, the plaintiff has filed a petition impleading himself in the above suit in Application No.1787 of 2015. In the above application, the 1st defendant filed counter stating that he never authorised or permitted the 2nd defendant to use his name for any such transaction. It is the contention of the plaintiff that if the above counter was earlier filed, criminal case would have been registered against the 2nd respondent under Section 420 I.P.C. Thereafter C.S.No.598 of 2014 was compromised between the 1st defendant and varsha productions. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has not taken any action against the second defendant. Hence he prayed for a decree against the defendants for mandatory direction, directing the 2nd defendant from misusing 1st defendants name without his consent, permission within the stipulated period of 4 weeks and in the event of failure to do so, to declare that there is collusion between the 1st and 2nd defendant and other reliefs. The defendants have also filed Application Nos.4433 and 4747 of 2015 to reject the plaint, which are also taken into consideration of this Court.

4. Heard both sides. The main contention of the party-in-person before this Court is that, he has advanced money to the 2nd defendant on his representation that his son or 1st defendant would take care, if he failed to pay the amount. Only on such representation he gave money to the 2nd defendant, however the cheque was dishonoured. Thereafter when the 1st defendant has filed the suit against M/s. Varsha productions, the plaintiff sought to implead himself in that suit. In the above impleadment application the 1st defendant has filed counter stating that he never given consent or permission to the second defendant to gave such statement. Therefore, the main contention of the party in person is that the 1st defendant being the famous actor, despite his fame was tarnished by the 2nd defendant, he has not taken any action against the 2nd defendant as the 2nd defendant is his daughter’s father-in-law and therefore seeks mandatory direction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st defendant vehemently submitted that this suit has been filed with intention to malign and defame the 1st defendants name and fame and also to extort money. The 1st defendant is a very famous actor in the state viz., Mr.Rajnikanth and his daughter’s father-in-law who is also Producer of the films. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that absolutely there is no cause of action in the suit and the suit is filed only for getting publicity. Hence prayed for rejection of the suit.

6. Perused the plaint. It is well settled that a suit can be rejected on the ground of no cause of action. Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.reads as follows:

“11. Rejection of plaint – The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed 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;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9:

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper , as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

7. Clause (a) deals with when there is no cause of action the suit can be rejected. Clause (d) deals with where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, suit can be rejected. It is well settled that to apply clause (11)(a) the Court has to look whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety. So long as the plaint discloses cause of action which requires determination by the Court, the mere fact that, in the opinion of the judge the plaintiff may not succeed, cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint.

8. When the pleadings of plaint and the documents are carefully perused, the plaintiff has proceeded under the premise that there is an obligation of the 1stdefendant to take action against the 2nd defendant. The allegation in the plaint discloses as if the 2nd defendant borrowed some money and assured repayment of that amount by his sons father-in-law being the 1st defendant, famous actor. Therefore, he advanced the amount. It is to be noted that the plaint itself clearly indicates that merely on such assurance he has advanced the money, he has already got pro-note and also cheque, which resulted in filing of 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings.

9. Be that as it may. It is the main contention of the plaintiff that when the 1st defendant himself filed suit against M/s Varsha Productions for not to misuse his name, the plaintiff filed an application to implead himself in the above suit in C.S.No.598 of 2014. The 1st defendant objected to implead the plaintiff in that suit, wherein he has stated that he has noway connected with the transaction between second defendant and plaintiff and also stated that he never gave consent to second defendant to use his name. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that if the 1st defendant filed the counter earlier, he would have taken proceedings under Section 420 I.P.C.against the 2nd defendant. Merely because the 2nd defendant had allegedly misrepresented some thing to tarnish the name of the first defendant, it cannot be construed that the 1st defendant has to take action against the 2nd defendant. Even assuming if there is such misrepresnetation, fraudulant representation on the part of the 2nd defendant, it is the choice of the 1st defendant either to take action or not to take action. The Court cannot compel the party to take action against somebody who appears to have misuses the name of party. If such suits are entertained in routine manner, there will not be an end for frivolous litigation in the court of law. The plaintiffs pleadings itself shows that he is the film financier, who has consciously entered into a loan transaction with the 2nd defendant. That being so, his contention that the 1st defendant should take action against the second defendant is, nothing but mischievous and such action is brought only to get publicity.

10. It is common knowledge that if any litigation filed against any person who is in the limelight and public personality, it will get huge attraction in the media and it will be a hot news for media for few days. The plaintiff filed such a suit in order to get publicity and not in any other purpose.

11. Relief sought in the suit itself is mandatory direction. In this regard it is to be noted that Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act reads as follows:

"39. Mandatory injunctions

When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts."

12. On a careful reading of the above section goes to show that when there is any obligation on the party to prevent the breach of such obligation, the Court can compel to perform certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing. Only on such circumstances, the Mandatory Injunctions can be granted by the Court. For seeking mandatory injunction there must be an obligation and to prevent breach of such obligation the court can compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing it. Admittedly in this case the relief sought is for a direction directing the 1st defendant to take action against the 2nd defendant for the alleged misrepresentation using his name. As already pointed out that taking action for misusing others names is the choice of the person whose name has been allegedly misused. The Court cannot compel every person to take action against somebody who allegedly misused his name, which is clearly barred under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, reading the entire pleadings and cause of action alleged in the plaint, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the plaint is nothing but abuse of process of law to gain a cheap publicity and keep the very famous person under tenderhook. Therefore, I am of the view that if such suits are entertained in the Court of law it will give a licence to the unscrupulous litigations to get cheap publicity in the eye of public. On the entire perusal of the plaint averments this court has come to the conclusion that the suit itself is not maintainable and the same is barred under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, no relief can be granted to direct the 1st defendant to take action against the 2nd defendant from misusing his name and also declare that there is a collusion between 1st and 2nd defendants.

13. The entire pleading appears to be speculative one. The suit itself ought not to have numbered. Unfortunately, the plaintiff is appearing in person for several cases got it numbered and brought before this Court. In this regard it is useful to refer the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in T. Arivanandandam v. Satyapal and another reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2421 in which it is held as follows:

"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending before the First Munsifs Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is dangerous to be too good.""

14. The party-in-person has also filed the following judgments, in support of his contention:

1. Soumitra Kumar Sen vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen and others [(2018) 5 SCC 644] [LQ/SC/2018/258]

2. Kuldeep Singh Pathania Vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal [(2017) 5 SCC 3341]

3. Unreported Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Ashraf Kokkur vs. K.V.Abdul Khader Etc., dated 29.08.2014.

4. Unreported judgment of this Court in N.Saravana Vs.Manujothi Ashramam dated 8.12.2014.

From the above judgments it can be seen that only the allegataions in the plaint has to be perused while deciding the rejection of the plaint. Absolutely there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law.

15. The entire pleadings of the plaint prima facie shows that the litigation was inspired by vexations motive and altogether groundless. If such plaints are not thrown out at the initial stage, it will give licence to people one like the plaintiff to approach the Court often even to get cheap publicity. Accordingly, this Court reject the plaint with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable to the first defendant.

16. In the result, the Plaint with costs. The Application Nos.4343 and 4747 of 2015 filed to reject the plaint are allowed.