Back
2011 (4) Supreme 625
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. — Appellants
versus
Nirmala Devi and Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4912-4913 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3157-3158 of 2011)
Decided on : 4-7-2011
(b) Administration of Justice – Practice and procedure – Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants on one ground or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the matter – Such practice deprecated – Need for remedial steps emphasised. (Paras 30 and 31)
(c) Administration of Justice – Uncalled for litigation – The parties raise unwarranted claims and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying – Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains uncompensated – Need for restitution and imposing actual or realistic costs couples with prosecution emphasized as remedial measure. (Para 34)
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rule 2A – While granting ad interim ex-parte injunction or stay order the court must record undertaking from the plaintiff or the petitioner that he will have to pay mesne profits at the market rate and costs in the event of dismissal of interim application and the suit. (Para 41)
(e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XIV Rule 1 – When a point has been determined up to the Supreme Court, the trial court ought not to have framed issue on that point – Even otherwise framing of such issue is exclusively barred by res judicata. (Para 44)
(f) Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXXIX Rule 2A – Ad interim injunction – As a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents – Ex-parte injunction may be granted in exceptional cases and while granting injunction the court must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits – Additionally, the life of ex parte ad interim injunction may be made extremely short. (Paras 47 and 48)
(g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 195 – To achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately because the parties have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury or even pay heavy costs – Perjury has become a way of life in our courts. (Para 48)
(2000) 5 SCC 668; (2008) 8 SCC 34 – Relied upon
(h) Administration of Justice – Steps suggested to drastically change or improve the existing system. (Paras 52 and 53)
(i) Administration of Justice – Factors to be taken into considerations for imposing costs stated. (Paras 54 and 55)
Facts of the case:
1. This case is a classic example of how the process of court can be abused to harass an adversary.
2. The respondents lingered the litigation from 1992 to 2011 on one pretext or the other.
3. This case also highlights how non-application of mind and haste in framing issues can cost a party several years of litigation.
4. The appellants’ only motive appears to create obstacles during the course of trial and not to let the trial conclude by filing applications after applications at every stage.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed with cost.
Key Points: - The dispute involves a residential house allotted in 1952, with claims of joint family partition and adverse possession by younger brothers (!) (!) (!) . - The appellants have been restrained from harassing the respondents by filing repetitive and dilatory applications over decades (!) (!) (!) . - Courts must impose realistic costs and damages to deter frivolous litigation and abuse of judicial process (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGEMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 and the order dated 25.10.2010 passed in Review Petition No. 429 of 2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
3. The apparent discernible question which requires adjudication in this case seems to be a trivial, insignificant and small one regarding imposition of costs, but in fact, these appeals have raised several important questions of law of great importance which we propose to deal in this judgment. Looking to the importance of the matter we requested Dr. Arun Mohan, a distinguished senior advocate to assist this court as an Amicus Curiae.
4. This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity harass the respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system.
5. The basic facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as under:-
6. In the year 1952, almost about half a century ago, the government allotted a residential house bearing nos. 61-62, I-Block, Lajpat Nagar-I, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad. The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964.
7. On humane considerations of shelter, Ram Parshad allowed his three younger brothers - Madan Lal, Krishan Gopal and Manohar Lal to reside with him in the house. On 16.11.1977, these three younger brothers filed a Civil Suit No.993 of 1977 in the High Court of Delhi claiming that this Lajpat Nagar property belonged to a joint Hindu Family and sought partition of the property on that basis.
8. The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 18.01.1982 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. The appellants (younger brothers) of Ram Parshad, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a Regular First Appeal (Original Side) 4 of 1982 which was admitted to hearing on 09.03.1982. During the pendency of the appeal, Ram Parshad on 15.01.1992 filed a suit against his three younger brothers for mandatory injunction to remove them and for recovery of mesne profits. In 1984 Ram Parshad sold western half (No.61) to an outsider. That matter is no longer in dispute.
9. The first appeal filed by the other three younger brothers of Ram Parshad against Ram Parshad was dismissed on 09.11.2000. Against the concurrent findings of both of the judgments, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition No.3740 of 2001 in this court which was also dismissed on 16.03.2001.
10. In the suit filed by Ram Parshad (one of the respondents) (now deceased) against the appellants in these appeals the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC as alleged in para no.1 of Preliminary Objection?
2. Whether defendants are licencees in the suit premises and if so whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the same from them?
3. Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred?
4. Whether suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?
5. Whether the suit property is joint family property of parties?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits for use and occupation of the suit property by the defendants and if so at what rate and for which period?
7. Whether defendants have become the owner of three- fourth share of the suit property by adverse possession?
8. Relief.
and fixed the matter for evidence on 22.11.2004.
11. The defendants in the suit contended that inasmuch as Regular First Appeal (Original Side) 4 of 1982 was still pending, therefore, Ram Parshad’s suit be stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accepting the contention, on 20.07.1992, the 1992 suit was ordered to be stayed.
12. The Regular First Appeal was dismissed on 9.11.2000 and the Special leave petition against th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
