JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. This case dismays and disturbs any adjudicator. The applicant's conduct-rather that of her counsel, who happens to be her son, too--sets anybody's teeth on edge, after hearing the arguments. The applicant seems to have been obsessed with only one intent: to litigate until she gets her argument accepted, meritless it may be. To achieve this, no rule or rhyme should come in her way. Should anyone intervene, be it a judge, the applicant does not hesitate to trample upon decency, decorum, or even reputation. We shall soon see that.

2. In the suit filed by the applicant before the Small Cause Court, the defendants plead that one of the defendants is no more; he died long back in the USA. They produce the proof. The erstwhile GPA Holder of the person died affirms that on oath, too. The trial Court rules on it; unsatisfied, the applicant appeals. The Appellate Bench also concurs with the trial Court. Then, the applicant files a Civil Revision Application, ostensibly, under Section 115 of CPC, makes a hue and cry, claims that the issue is of immense importance, demands that the Hon'ble Chief Justice should refer it to a Division Bench or a Full Bench, calls everybody names, and eventually loses the CRA.

3. After losing the CRA, he files a Civil Application, demands this Court to set aside its earlier order, and also wants a Single Judge to declare a coequal Bench's decision per incuriam. Pending that, not contented, again she goes back to the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, files a similar appeal or application once again and demands a decision, even after this Court's affirming the Appellate Bench's earlier decision on the same issue. She refuses to pay the costs imposed by this Court, threatens the learned presiding judges--all in the name of seeking justice.

4. The tone and the tenor--the incomprehensibility and the cacophony apart--the pleadings running into forty pages demonstrate what pleadings ought not to be.

Backdrop:

5. The applicant has filed RAD Suit No. 124 of 2006 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, seeking, it seems, a declaration that she is the landlord's subtenant. In that suit, she arrayed five defendants. The 1st defendant was the original owner of the property. The 2nd defendant is a Society comprising the owners and occupants. The 3rd defendant is said to be a developer and chief promoter of the Society. The 4th defendant is another Society. This Society owns the plot on which the tenements were built. So it is termed the Parent Society. The 5th respondent is the Brihanmumbai Corporation.

6. Though the case has many parallel developments, I do not intend to refer to any of them, I confine to the two disputes before me; the second one depends on the survival of the first one. Primarily, the question before me is whether this Civil Application is maintainable. An answer in the affirmative alone, would want me to analyse the merits of the matter. Therefore, I will narrate the facts only to contextualise the case, but not to discuss the merits--once again.

The Counsel and the Case:

7. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the applicant is none other than her son: Shri Narendra Deshmukh. It was his wont to mention the matter daily. So I took it up for hearing, out of turn. When the arguments began, I repeatedly reminded Shri Deshmukh that he should first convince the Court about the maintainability of CRA. And for that purpose, I wanted him to confine his arguments to that issue. But he went on arguing 'everything under the sun', unrestrained. He argued the whole day, almost. That said, to be fair to Shri Deshmukh, I must say though he was insistent, he had never been disrespectful to the Court. Maybe he was consumed by the fact that the matter concerns his own dwelling. Nevertheless, professional as he has been as a practicing lawyer; he ought to have displayed restraint and balance. I got neither from the learned counsel, however.

Facts in Brief:

8. In the suit, th