w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ashok Kumar Sood v/s Sardar Darshan Singh

    Civil Revision No. 99 of 2018

    Decided On, 21 November 2018

    At, High Court of Himachal Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

    For the Appearing Parties: Ajay Kumar, Dheeraj Vashisht, G.C. Gupta, Meera Devi, Advocates.



Judgment Text

The petitioner is the landlord whereas respondent is the tenant. The petitioner had earlier filed eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 (for short 'the Act') seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises i.e. Shop No. 11/1 situated at Jagat Niwas, Sanjauli Bazaar, Shimla - 6. The eviction was sought mainly on the following grounds:-

2. Unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

3. Rebuilding and reconstruction.

2. The eviction petition was partly allowed on the ground that the petitioner bonafidely required the demised premises for its rebuilding and reconstruction and eviction on old lines and eviction on other grounds were declined.

3. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 10.11.2005 and even the revision petition preferred against the said order was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2010

4. The landlord thereafter filed an execution petition wherein the tenant took a plea that he has right of re-entry as per Section 14(3)(c) of the Act and vide order dated 10.06.2013, as per the statement of the parties, the right of re-entry was granted to the tenant and thereafter the keys of the demised premises were handed over to the landlord vide order dated 06.07.2013.

5. Admittedly, landlord did not carry out rebuilding / reconstruction work and only buttressed the building by carrying out plastering of the walls and flooring work. It is thereafter the tenant filed an application under Sections 14(5) and 14 (3) (c) of the Act for restoration of possession of the tenanted premises on the ground that the landlord has not put the premises for which the eviction was obtained by him and, therefore, the possession be restored to the tenant as per Section 14(5) of the Act. It was further contended that the tenant had right of re-entry vide order dated 10.06.2013, particularly, when the demised premises was lying closed for the last 1 years. In the alternate, the tenant prayed that he be inducted in the demised premises as per proviso to section 14(3)(c) of the Act.

6. Landlord contested the application by filing reply wherein he raised preliminary objections to the effect that the order of eviction had attained finality before the right to re-entry was incorporated by way of amendment in the Act. It was further contended that the Executing Court could not go beyond the decree and, therefore, the right of re-entry cannot be forced upon the landlord.

7. In addition thereto, the landlord also took preliminary objections that the right of re-entry can be effected only by mutual agreement of the parties and, therefore, in absence of any such mutual agreement, the landlord cannot be compelled to re-induct the tenant in the demised premises and further contended that the present application had been filed by the tenant to harass the landlord. On merits, the landlord took a defence that the rebuilding/reconstruction work had not yet been completed and rather had been stalled by the illegal, unlawful and unauthorized acts of the tenant who came to the spot on various occasions and threatened the landlord and his labourers with dire consequence and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the application.

8. The tenant filed the rejoinder reiterating the contents of the application and rebutted the averments as contained in the reply.

9. The application filed by the tenant came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller and the landlord was directed to restore possession of the demised premises to him within a period of 30 days. This order was assailed before the learned appellate authority, who vide order dated 09.04.2018, rejected the appeal and consequently the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed.

10. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Courts below, the landlord has filed the instant revision petition mainly on the ground that both the authorities below have failed to appreciate that the building in question was 4 storeys building and the landlord had filed four different eviction petitions against the four tenants, namely, Smt. Kaushlaya Devi, Dr. J. D. Vohra, Shri B. M. Kapila and Shri Darshan Singh. The other occupants were occupying the upper floors of the building whereas tenant in the present case was the occupant of the ground floor against whom the eviction order already stood passed on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction as per the sanctioned plan. However, one of the floors of which Shri B. M. Kapila (now deceased) was an occupant, was still occupied. The occupant had, in fact, filed objections under Section 47 of the C.P.C. in the execution petition filed against him by the landlord. He was occupying the first floor just above the shop of Darshan Singh.

11. In addition thereto, the nephew of Shri B. M. Kapila had also filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and the said order was upheld by this Court. Once the premises in which Shri B. M. Kapila was the tenant, was yet to be handed over to the landlord, therefore, it was not possible for him to carry out reconstruction/rebuilding. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

12. Section 14 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants and sub section 3(c) of this Section reads as under:-

"3(c). in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bona fide by him for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land is required bonafide by him for the purpose of building ort re-building or making thereto any substantial additions and alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated.

Provided that the tenant evicted under this clause shall have right to reentry on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord or tenant, to the premises in the re-built building equivalent in area to the original premises for which he was tenant. Provided further that in case of non residential premises, the landlord shall not compel the tenant for a change of business under the new terms of tenancy; and"

13. Whereas sub Section 5 of this Section reads thus:-

"5. Where a landlord who has obtained possession of the building or rented land in pursuance of an order under subsection (3) does not occupy it himself, or if possession was obtained by him for his family in pursuance of an order under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section. (3), his family does not occupy the residential building, or if possession was obtained by him on behalf of (his son or daughter) in pursuance of an order under clause (d) of sub-section (3) (his son or daughter) does not occupy it for the purpose for which the possession was obtained, for a continuous period of twelve months from the date of obtaining possession or if possession was obtained under sub-section (2) of section 15 he does not occupy it for personal use for a continuous period of 3 months from the date of obtaining possession or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under clause (c) of subsection (3) puts that building to any uise other than that for which it was obtained or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly."

14. Admittedly, in the present case no issue has been framed by the learned Rent Controller even though an application to this effect had been filed by the tenant. It was, in fact, on the joint request of the parties that the Local Commissioner was appointed as is evident from the order passed by learned Rent Controller on 25.07.2016, which reads thus:-

"25.7.2016

Present: Sh. Gautam Sood, Advocate, for the plaintiff.

Sh. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for defendant.

The case was listed for consideration on the point that issues are required to be framed for deciding whether the demised premises has been reconstructed or not and whether construction of any type was carried out after passing of eviction order or not but perusal of file shows that this dispute can only be resolved by appointing the Local Commissioner. Accordingly, with the consent of parties Sh. Vikas Sharma, Advocate is appointed a Local Commissioner who shall visit the spot and submit its report as to whether demised premises comprised of shop No. 11/1, Jagat Niwas, Sanjauli, Bazaar, Shimla are reconstructed or rebuilt or any construction work done of any type or not and if done then its extent. His fee is assessed at Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. A letter in this regard be issued to concerned Local Commissioner within three days and report be called for 08.08.2016.

Sd/-

(Gurmeet Kaur)

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)

Court No. 1, Shimla, H.P."

15. The Local Commissioner in his report after visiting the spot, made the following observations:

"As I have been appointed to inspect whether the shop No. 11/1 situated at Ground floor of Jagat Niwas, Sanjauli Bazaar, Shimla, H.P. is reconstructed or rebuild or any construction work done of any type or not and if done than its extent. So my observations are:-

The shop in question is completely renovated by doing the plaster work from inside. The shop is neither reconstructed nor rebuilded as the word "reconstruction" means the process of building or creating something again that has been damaged or destroyed and the word "rebuild" means to build something again that has been damaged or destroyed which is not done in the present case."

16. Admittedly, none of the parties filed objection to the report and, therefore, it is established by the said report that the landlord has merely renovated and buttressed the demised premises by plastering the walls and floors and has not reconstructed or rebuild the demised premises. This clearly belies the plea of the landlord that the rebuilding/reconstruction work is yet to be completed. In case, the landlord had any intention or was serious to rebuild and reconstruct the premises, there was no reason why he would have spent such a huge amount in buttressing the building by plastering the wall and floor of the building, if eventually the same was to be demolished.

17. That apart, the mere fact that the premises which was in occupation of Shri Kapila has not yet been vacated, did not prevent the landlord from carrying out the demolition of the two floors above the one in occupation of Shri Kapila, if at all he was serious enough to have the building rebuilt and reconstructed.

18. Indubitably, the tenant had a right of re-entry as is evident from the order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 14.06.2013, which reads thus:-

"14.06.2013 Present:-

Sh. Gautam Sood, Ld. Csl. For the DH.

Sh. Dheeraj Kanwar, Ld. Csl. For the JD.

Ld. Counsel for the JD has filed an application under Order 14(3)(c) with the prayer that landlord be directed to re-induct him as a tenant as per mandate of amended Section 14(3) (c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act in the interest of Justice.

Reply to the application filed. The application is resisted and contested by the respondent/DH alleging that the present application is not maintainable on the ground that this application has been filed pre-mature stage.

I have considered the application and reply thereof. Applicant is seeking right through this application which is provided under the law. He shall definitely get this right as per the mandate of amended Section 14(3) (c). Accordingly, the application is allowed. He shall have right to be re-inducted as provided under the law. On the basis of mutual agreement between the parties.

JD vide separate statement on record has undertaken that he would vacate the premises till 06.07.2013. Further, he has also undertaken that DH shall have liberty to take police assistance in execution of the order of vacation if he fails to comply with his undertaking. Ld. Counsel for the DH has accepted the statement of JD. The submission of the parties made order of the Court. Be listed for further order on 07.06.2013.

Sd/-

(Avinash Chander)

Rent Controller,

Court No. 1, Shimla, H.P.,"

19. It is further not in dispute that the tenant has not been handed over the premises and the landlord has also not carried out any reconstruction and rebuilding. Therefore, the tenant has a right of re-entry in accordance with Section 14(3)(c) of the Act (supra) and having been denied the same, was well within his right to invoke the provision of Section 14(5) of the Act.

20. Since, reconstruction and rebuilding has not been done by the landlord, then no fault can be found with the order passed by the authorities below in directing the restoration of possession to the tenant.

21. The aforesaid narrations of seeking eviction, leave no manner of doubt that the landlord has resorted to false claim and false defence in the hope that the tenant, who otherwise is more than 82 years would tire and ultimately facilitate the landlord to enter into unconscionable bargaining with the tenant. This obviously has to be avoided. It is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief. The right of re-entry of the tenant having been duly acknowledged and accepted by landlord and thereafter questioning the same adversely reflects upon the conduct of the landlord which to say the least is reprehensible.

22. It is because of such false and incoherent pleas by the parties due to which the judicial system in the country is chocked and such litigants consuming courts time for a wrong cause. Efforts are made by the parties to steal a march over their rivals by resorting to false and incoherent statements made before the Court. This clearly is the abuse of the process of the Court as the intent of the landlord is to deceive and mislead the Court that too by taking shelter of falsehood, misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains. This Court is required to maintain strictness, vigilance over the abuse of the process of the Court and curb such tendencies with iron hands.

23. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that false claims and defences are serious problems with the litigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"False claims and false defences

84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent."

24. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a new creed of litigants have cropped up in the last 40 years who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:-

"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.

2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."

25. In Satyender Singh Vs. Gulab Singh, (2012) 129 DRJ 128, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court following Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) observed that the Courts are flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties due to which the judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming Courts? time for a wrong cause."

The observations of Court are as under:-

"2. As rightly observed by the Supreme Court, Satya is a basic value of life which was required to be followed by everybody and is recognized since many centuries. In spite of caution, courts are continued to be flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties. The judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming courts" time for a wrong cause. Efforts are made by the parties to steal a march over their rivals by resorting to false and incoherent statements made before the Court. Indeed, it is a nightmare faced by a Trier of Facts; required to stitch a garment, when confronted with a fabric where the weft, shuttling back and forth across the warp in weaving, is nothing but lies. As the threads of the weft fall, the yarn of the warp also collapses; and there is no fabric left."

26. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in, (2013) 2 SCC 398, has dealt in detail with "abuse of process of Court" in the following terms:- Abuse of the process of Court :

"31. Now, we shall deal with the question whether both or any of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of suppression of material facts, not approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the Court. Before we dwell upon the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, let us refer to some case laws which would help us in dealing with the present situation with greater precision.

32. The cases of abuse of the process of court and such allied matters have been arising before the Courts consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:

32.1. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with 'unclean hands'. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief.

32.2. The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.

32.3. The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.

32.4. Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.

32.5. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

32.6. The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.

32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.

32.8. The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it. [Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402].

33. Access jurisprudence requires Courts to deal with the legitimate litigation whatever be its form but decline to exercise jurisdiction, if such litigation is an abuse of the process of the Court. In P.S.R.Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr., (1980) 3 SCC 141, the Court held:

"15. The crucial significance of access jurisprudence has been best expressed by Cappelletti:

"The right of effective access to justice has emerged with the new social rights. Indeed, it is of paramount importance among these new rights since, clearly, the enjoyment of traditional as well as new social rights presupposes mechanisms for their effective protection. Such protection, moreover, is best assured be a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system. Effective access to justice can thus be seen as the most basic requirement the most basic 'human-right' of a system which purports to guarantee legal rights."

16. We are thus satisfied that the bogey of busybodies blackmailing adversaries through frivolous invocation of Article 136 is chimerical. Access to justice to every bona fide seeker is a democratic dimension of remedial jurisprudence even as public interest litigation, class action, pro bono proceedings, are. We cannot dwell in the home of processual obsolescence when our Constitution highlights social justice as a goal. We hold that there is no merit in the contentions of the writ petitioner and dismiss the petition."

34. It has been consistently stated by this Court that the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is the basis of the Justice Delivery System.

35. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.

36. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts". (Refer : Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors. v. Munshi & Anr., (1969) 1 SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Pari palanai Sangam & Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 430]; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421, 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr., (2011) 7 SCC 639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 287)].

37. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, which means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another, is the percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction of the court should not become a source of abuse of the process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the court with clean hands.

38. No litigant can play 'hide and seek with the courts or adopt 'pick and choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court. [K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481].

39. Another settled canon of administration of justice is that no litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be used as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530)."

12. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the conduct of the respondents was in fact in abuse of the process of the Court. What is "abuse of process of Court" of course has not been defined or given any meaning in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, a party to a litigation can be said to be guilty of abuse of process of the Court in any of the following cases as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Ranipet Municipality Rep. by its.... Vs. M. Shamsheerkhan reported in, (1998) 1 CTC 66 at paragraph 9. To quote:

"9. It is this conduct of the respondent that is attacked by the petitioner as abuse of process of Court. What is 'abuse of the process of the Court'? Of course, for the term 'abuse of the process of the Court' the Code of Civil Procedure has not given any definition. A party to a litigation is said to be guilty of abuse of process of the Court, in any of the following cases:-

(1) Gaining an unfair advantage by the use of a rule of procedure.

(2) Contempt of the authority of the Court by a party or stranger.

(3) Fraud or collusion in Court proceedings as between parties.

(4) Retention of a benefit wrongly received.

(5) Resorting to and encouraging multiplicity of proceedings.

(6) Circumventing of the law by indirect means.

(7) Presence of witness during examination of previous witness.

(8) Institution vexatious, obstructive or dilatory actions.

(9) Introduction of Scandalous or objectionable matter in proceedings.

(10) Executing a decree manifestly at variance with its purpose and intent.

(11) Institution of a suit by a puppet plaintiff.

(12) Institution of a suit in the name of the firm by one partner against the majority opinion of other partners etc." The above are only some of the instances where a party may be said to be guilty of committing of "abuse of process of the Court".

27. The judicial system has been abused and virtually brought to its knees by unscrupulous litigants like the landlord in this case. It has to be remembered that Court's proceedings are sacrosanct and should not be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. The plaintiffs have abused the process of the Court.

28. The further question which now arises is as to how to curb this tendency of abuse of process of Court. As suggested in Kishore Samrite (supra), one of the ways to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and others vs. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 took judicial notice of the fact that the courts are flooded with these kinds of cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrongdoers and stressed for imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and it was held:-

"52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials:

A. Pleadings are the foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial Judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.

B. The court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at the truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.

C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

D. The court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits.

E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing the parties concerned appropriate orders should be passed.

F. Litigants who obtained ex parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.

G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.

H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well-settled principles of law and justice.

I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided. J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare a complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right form filing of the written statement till pronouncement of the judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said timetable as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearing fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed." 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 8 SCC 161 observed:- "191. In consonance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience Judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to abuse the legl process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of the process of the court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the respondent or the defendant has in fact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. No one should be permitted to use the judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust profits. The court must effectively discourage fraudulent, unscrupulous and dishonest litigation. 192. The court's constant endeavour must be ensure that everyone gets just and fair treatment. The court while rendering justice must adopt a pragmatic approach and in appropriate cases realistic costs and compensation be ordered in order to discourage dishonest litigation. The object and true meaning of the concept of restitution cannot be achieved or accomplished unless the courts adopt a pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases. 193. This Court in a very recent case Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi had an occasion to deal with similar questions of law regarding imposition of realistic costs and restitution. One of us (Bhandari, J.) was the author of the judgment. It was observed in that case as under: (SCC pp. 268-69, paras 54-55) "54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter-affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee, etc. 55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years." 30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, not only those, this petition sans merits, but as observed above, is an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.30,000/- to be paid to the respondent. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
O R