Back
2004 Supreme(Bom) 1583
Bombay High Court
Decided on (DECEMBER 20, 2004)
VIJAYKUMAR RAMRANG CHAUDHAR
Versus
D. K. SOONAWALLA
Headnote:Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 15(2)(b) - Show-cause notice. - Since defendant initiated frivolous proceedings to interfere with administration of justice hence show-cause notice for contempt of Court directed to be issued. - The case of the plaintiffs is that he is dispossessed from the suit premises without due process of law. The defendants are thus enjoying the possession of the premises and, therefore, neither interested in conducting the present litigation nor permitting the plaintiffs to prosecute his suit. The suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are of summary nature and thus required to be decided expeditiously. However, the conduct on the part of the defendants has defeated the said object. It is a high time that the litigants must know that the proceedings in the Court are the solemn proceedings and is meant to provide justice to the needy people. It is thus imperative that the conduct on the part of the defendants to initiate frivolous proceedings after proceedings must be deprecated and stringent measure should be taken. It is not a case of mere taking out of frivolous proceedings but the nature thereof indicates that the same are initiated with a calculated motive to obstruct the plaintiff from prosecuting the suit which he has initiated. Therefore, the three proceedings i.e., Chamber Summons No. 1263 of 2001. Notice of Motion No. 865 of 2002 and chamber summons No. 1901 of 2004 are dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 15,000/- each. Defendant No. 1 is also interfering with the administration of justice by taking out false and frivolous proceedings and abusing the process of law as also by conduct delayed the Court by avoiding to enter in the witness box for further cross-examination though present outside the Court. Therefore, the issuance of a show cause notice to defendant for contempt returnable on 14.2.2005 is directed.
High Court (Original Side) Rules - Rule 84 - Service of summons. - Filing of "vakalatnama" by Advocate is itself sufficient to show that summons in proceedings are duly served. - The defendant has engaged the Advocates not one but earlier three Advocates. They have filed a vakalatnama in Court in the present proceedings. Thus, under Rule 84 there is a due service of the proceedings on the defendant.
Notice of Motion. - It is discretion of Court to record oral evidence in Notice of Motion.
S. U. KAMDAR, J.
( 1 ) THE present suit has been filed by the plaintiff inter-alia seeking an order and decree against the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the flat No. 1b in the building known as Jawaharabad in hawaharabad Co-operative Housing Society at Plot No. 35, 9th Road, TPS (IV) bandra, Bombay. Further reliefs are also sought as and by way of damages and various other interim reliefs.
( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in use, occupation and possession of the premises under a leave and licence agreement dated 1-11-1972 and he has been physically dispossessed from the suit premises sometime or about in November, 1995 by the defendant. In view of the unlawful dispossession, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of possession of the premises under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is the case of the plaintiff that a prior suit in the Small Causes Court is pending which was filed by the mother of the defendant No. 1 and the wife of defendant No. 2 being R. A. E. Suit No. 102/257/1990 for eviction. The said suit was pending uptil 1997. It is further case of the plaintiff that when the plaintiff was out of station, the defendants, taking advantage thereof, took forcible possession of the premises and, on returning in 1995 the plaintiff found that he is dispossessed from the suit premises. Accordingly, a police complaint was lodged by the plaintiff being C. R. No. 679 of 1995 which is registered. The defendant No. 1 was arrested and was released on bail on 22-1-1996.
( 3 ) THE present suit has been filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief act, 1963 and writ of summons was issued by the Prothonotary and Senior master on 22-3-1996. The writ of summons was lodged on 8-9-1996 and on 18-9-1996 the writ of summons was transmitted by Registered A. D. for service to the defendants. In the meantime, the defendants were also served by personal service since the plaintiffs were also seeking urgent ad-interim orders in the present suit. Pursuant to the said service, the defendants engaged an Advocate and the matter was heard for ad-interim relief and, ad-interim reliefs were granted in favour of the plaintiff herein.
( 4 ) INSOFAR as writ of summons is concerned, on 3-10-1996 the packet which was sent the defendant No. 1 was received back by the Sheriffs Office and on 4-10-1996 an acknowledgment was received by the Office of the Sheriff in respect of defendant No. 2. On 5-10-1996 the plaintiffs clerk collected the above acknowledgment indicating service to the 2nd defendant. The suit appeared for directions before the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master on 27-4-2001. One mr. D. Khatkhate, Advocate represented Shri Gangal, Advocate for the defendants and requested time to file written statement and four weeks time was granted. On 22-6-2001 one Mr. A. Shanglikar appeared for the defendants and sought further time for four weeks to file the written statement which was also granted. On 20-7-2001 and on 17-8-2001 further adjournments were sought to file written statement. However, no written statement was filed and, accordingly, by an order dated 14-9-2001 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the suit was transferred to the list of undefended suits. It is this order which has been challenged in the present Chamber Summons being Chamber Summons No. 1263 of 2001. In the present Chamber Summons, it is being prayed that the said order dated 14-9-2001 should be set aside and the present suit should be listed for dismissal under Order XI Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for non-service on the defendant.
( 5 ) A Notice of Motion being Notice of Motion No. 865 of 2002 has also been taken out by the defendants and, in the said Notice of Motion, a prayer is made, that the suit should be dismissed under Order IX, Rule 5 of the Civil procedure Code and proceedings under section 195 should be initiated under the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the p
