In Jalal Uddin Mia and others v Alhaj Abdul Awal and others (Civil Revision No. 5150/2005), the High Court Division's single bench comprising Md. Ashraful Kamal J came down heavily on litigants filing frivolous litigations without any cause of action. Initially, the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 174/2003 before the learned Senior Assistant Judge's court in Kushtia, seeking a declaration that the memo issued by the respondents was 'illegal, inoperative, collusive and not binding upon them.' The plaintiffs were owners of Rice Mills and consumers of electricity supplied by the Power Development Board. They contended that the concerned memo asked to hand over that electricity supply line to Palli Biddut Samity. The plaintiffs alleged that despite them paying their electricity bills properly and regularly, the defendants connived together to issue the memo. They also prayed for temporary injunction as interim relief.  

However, on the date fixed for the maintainability hearing, the learned Senior Assistant Judge rejected the plaint and disallowed the temporary injunction petition. The learned Senior Assistant Judge stated that no cause of action arose in the plaintiffs' favour since the concerned memo neither ordered cutting the electricity supply to the rice mills nor any disruption to the services provided to them. He held that since the concerned memo did not adversely affect the plaintiffs, they had no locus standi to file the suit. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not issue service of summons and notices to the defendants.

Aggrieved against this judgment, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushtia. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and stated that by whimsically and capriciously rejecting the plaint and disallowing the temporary injunction petition (when the defendants did not pray for rejecting the plaint), the trial court 'committed miscarriage of justice.'  

Afterward, a civil revision was filed before the High Court Division against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. At the onset of the judgment, Kamal J presented the judgments of both the learned Senior Assistant Judge and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge verbatim. Then, he referred to T Arivandandam v TV Satyapal ([1977] AIR SC 2421) and Nazim Habibuzzaman v World Bank and others ((2002) 7 MLR 132 (HCD)). Both cases dealt with the rejection of plaints due to no cause of action arising in the plaintiffs' favour. Thus, the Indian Supreme Court (in the former case) and the High Court Division (in the latter case, which cited the former case) heavily criticized the respective plaintiffs for filing such vexatious, frivolous, and meritless suits. Both judgments clearly stated that when plaints fail to disclose any cause of action in the plaintiffs' favour, the concerned judges shall reject the plaints.

Kamal J then cited the relevant provisions regarding the presentation and examination of plaints and the issue of processes from the Civil Rules and Orders, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Manual of Practical Instructions for the Conduct of Civil Suits.

Taking a combined reading of the precedents and the legal provisions, he concluded that the learned Senior Assistant Judge correctly rejected the plaint as per rule 11(a) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He observed that if a plaint fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by any law, judges shall, without further ado, reject that under Order VII, rule 11(a) or 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Doing so will relieve the judiciary from hearing groundless, illegal, and vexatious suits, leading to decreased case backlogs. Therefore, the High Court Decision upheld the learned Senior Assistant Judge's judgment by setting aside the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge's decision.

Before concluding, Kamal J gave 13 recommendations and 2 directions. The recommendations deal with ensuring the reduction of case backlogs by our judiciary. They are: establishing Bangladesh Judicial Academy on 1,000 hectare space in the light of National Judicial Academy, India, extending the foundation training course of judges to 6 months, mandatorily appointing a psychologist as a member of the Bangladesh Judicial Service Commission Viva Board, handing over judicial powers to newly appointed judges after completion of their foundation training, organizing 2 yearly trainings of 15 days each for the judges, signing MoUs with the universities and judicial training centres/academies/institutes of developed countries for judges' training, extensively amending the Civil Rules and Orders, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Manual of Practical Instructions for the Conduct of Civil Suits to update them with the needs of time, enacting legislation to provide compensation to victims of groundless, false, vexatious and frivolous civil suits (like UK), promoting the posts of sheristadars related to civil justice system as non-gazetted first class officers, enacting provisions to record statements of witnesses via affidavits (like Land Survey Tribunals), extensively involving and enlarging the jurisdiction of district legal aid officers regarding compromise and execution of civil suits (by amending the relevant legislation), increasing the number of judges and logistical support in the judiciary, ensuring proper case management by introducing online filing of cases and online cause lists, and conducting awareness seminars and symposiums against filing false and vexatious cases by the Bangladesh Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association and other bar associations throughout Bangladesh.

The 2 directions include: ordering sheristadars to strictly abide by rule 55 of the Civil Rules and Orders and directing all judges of civil courts to comply with the procedures outlined in the Manual of Practical Instructions for the Conduct of Civil Suits regarding examination and registration of plaints.

While the recommendations require active support from the legislature and executive, the directions, if followed by all concerned sheristadars and civil court judges, will be a stepping-stone towards curbing false, frivolous, and vexatious cases at their very onset. It will ensure speedy disposal of suits and reduction in case backlogs. Judges can also order compensatory costs under section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as held in T Arivandandam v TV Satyapal) to deter litigants from filing such groundless cases and ensuring that the aggrieved receive proper remedies. 

The writer is a lecturer at the Department of Law, East West University.