Monetary undertakings cannot scare litigants anymore!

The Supreme Court in its latest decision, in the case of Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj (AIR 2010 SC 4902) has laid down the principle that issuing directions to a plaintiff to file an undertaking to pay damages to the defendant in the event of being unsuccessful in the suit is not allowable. The court held that the CPC nowhere authorizes or empowers the court to issue a direction in this nature, even by virtue of the inherent powers of the High Court.

This decision is laudable since since it maintains the unfettered right of the citizens to approach the court with their claims. The courts may, to deter vexatious or frivolous litigation devise any other means or create jurisdictional bars, which would also in-turn regulate the litigants. Monetary considerations, however, cannot stand as 'check-posts' to determine whether a suit or proceeding which is initiated in accordance with law, is an abuse of the process of the court.

This principle will apply even to those actions which are likely to cause hardship to the defendant or is likely to be rejected ultimately. If a contrary approach is allowed to remain, it would terrorize the litigants to approach the court even with their bonafide claims.