The Madras High Court on Tuesday imposed costs of ₹25,000 on film financier Mukunchand Bothra for attempting to gain cheap publicity by filing a civil suit seeking a direction to actor Rajinikanth to “take action” against his relative, Kasthuri Raja, for having allegedly misused the actor’s name to borrow money.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar allowed applications filed by the actor as well as Mr. Raja to reject the suit and said: “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.” The financier was ordered to pay the costs to the actor.
The judge said: “The first defendant (Sivaji Rao Gaikwad alias Rajinikanth) is a very famous actor not only in the State but also in the country known as ‘Super Star’ Rajinikanth. The second defendant was R. Krishnamurthy alias Kasthuri Raja whose son married the first defendant’s daughter.”
Since Mr. Raja also happens to be a film producer, he had reportedly borrowed about ₹ 40 lakh from the financier in 2012. Subsequently, in the same year, he took ₹ 25 lakh more by reportedly misusing the actor’s name and claiming that the latter would settle the amount since they happen to be co-fathers-in-law.
Claiming that he had been cheated by Mr. Raja, the financier had filed the present suit seeking a direction to the actor to act against his co-father-in-law. After going through the plaint and perusing the documents carefully, the judge said that the suit had been filed on a wrong premise that there was an obligation on the part of the actor to initiate action.
“Merely because the second defendant had allegedly misrepresented something to tarnish the name of the first defendant, it cannot be construed that the first defendant has to take action. Even assuming there is such fraudulent representation, it is the choice of the first defendant either to take action or not to take action,” the judge said.
“The court cannot compel the party to take action against somebody who appears to have misused the name of the party. If such suits are entertained in a routine manner, there will not be an end for frivolous litigation in the court of law,” the judge said and wondered how did the High Court Registry even number the suit without there being any cause of action.
