Back
Judges : K.G.BALAKRISHNAN,M.JAGANNADHA RAO
P.G.Jose - Appellant
Versus
T.K.Madhu - Respondent
Case No : C.C.C. No. 225 of 1993
Decided On : 03/30/1994
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Johnson Manayani, George Kuruvilla, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.P. Mr. M.C. John.
Vexatious Litigant - Abuse of Process - Madras Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act (8 of 1949) - Sections 121 to 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Article 225 of the Constitution of India - Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act - The court held that the Madras Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 does not apply to the cases filed by Mr. Jose. The court also determined that it does not have inherent jurisdiction to declare Mr. Jose as a vexatious litigant and prevent him from approaching the court unless sanctioned by the Advocate General or by the Courts concerned. The court further discussed the rule-making power of the High Court and the possibility of making rules to prevent vexatious litigation and require prior permission of the Advocate General or the concerned courts for entertaining the case filed by such a person. The court also considered the inherent power to stay any proceedings as and when filed by Mr. Jose if the court comes to the conclusion that the said litigation is vexatious and is an abuse of the process of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved Mr. P. C. Jose, who had been filing numerous cases against lawyers, judicial officers, and High Court Judges, and engaging in various contemptuous activities. The court issued a show cause notice to Mr. Jose as to why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant, leading to a detailed analysis of the various litigations conducted by Mr. Jose in various courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Madras Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 does not apply to the cases filed by Mr. Jose. It also determined that it does not have inherent jurisdiction to declare Mr. Jose as a vexatious litigant and prevent him from approaching the court unless sanctioned by the Advocate General or by the Courts concerned. The court further discussed the rule-making power of the High Court and the possibility of making rules to prevent vexatious litigation and require prior permission of the Advocate General or the concerned courts for entertaining the case filed by such a person. The court also considered the inherent power to stay any proceedings as and when filed by Mr. Jose if the court comes to the conclusion that the said litigation is vexatious and is an abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: The main issues considered by the court were the applicability of the Madras Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 to the cases filed by Mr. Jose, the court's inherent jurisdiction to declare Mr. Jose as a vexatious litigant, the rule-making power of the High Court to prevent vexatious litigation, and the inherent power to stay any proceedings filed by Mr. Jose if the court determines that the litigation is vexatious and an abuse of the court's process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Madras Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 does not apply to the cases filed by Mr. Jose. It also determined that it does not have inherent jurisdiction to declare Mr. Jose as a vexatious litigant and prevent him from approaching the court unless sanctioned by the Advocate General or by the Courts concerned. The court further discussed the rule-making power of the High Court and the possibility of making rules to prevent vexatious litigation and require prior permission of the Advocate General or the concerned courts for entertaining the case filed by such a person. The court also considered the inherent power to stay any proceedings as and when filed by Mr. Jose if the court comes to the conclusion that the said litigation is vexatious and is an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the show cause notice dated 5-11-1993 in CCC No. 225 of 1993 and permitted Mr. Jose to withdraw the said case. The court also directed the registry to bring to the notice of the court the list of cases filed by Mr. Jose against Judicial Officers for appropriate action and to put up a note for appropriate direction to the concerned courts, suo motu, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
JAGANNADHA RAO, C.J.
In this order, we are dealing with a suo motu notice given by a Division Bench of this Court on 5-11-1993, in CCC 225 of 1993 directing the petitioner in the said CCC, Mr. P. C. Jose, to show cause why he should not be declared as a vexatious litigant, the effect of which will be to scrutinise any case proposed to be filed by him in any Court in Kerala, before the same is entertained. CCC 225 of 1993 was a Contempt Case filed by Mr. Jose on 1-10-1993 against Mr. T. K. Madhu, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cherthala.
2. Sri P. C. Jose to whom this show cause notice was issued on 5-11-1993 has been very much before courts. He has nominated himself as President of a self-styled body called the 'Anti-Corruption Society of India'. Under the garb of the above name, he has been filing case after case against lawyers, Munsiff-Magistrates, Chief Judicial Magistrates and also against High Court Judges. In fact, whosoever does not yield to his pressure will have to face a case on the criminal side or for damages. He has also filed Contempt Cases against Judicial Officer and High Court Judges. He also started publishing pamphlets against Judicial Officers and Judges of this Court and engaged the service of Mr. Sukumaran, Anil Printers, Cherthala, to print pamphlets and also used Mr. Kaladharan, Advocate, Ernakulam to sign his affidavits. After launching an unwarranted tirade against the Judicial Officers and Judges of this Court, he admittedly started acting as power-of-attorney-holder to various litigants. This Court got a written complaint that Mr. Jose is collecting money on the ground that he has put the judiciary in the dock and can obtain any order from any Court, if he is engaged as power-of-attorney-holder. He has admitted in his written objection dated 10-11-1993, filed to the present show cause notice, that he is acting as power-of-attorney-holder for several litigants.
3. What led to the present show cause notice is a story by itself. When the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cherthala, tried to curb the unruly and hostile behaviour of Mr. Jose in his Court, Mr. Jose filed a Contempt Case, CCC No. 225 of 1993 on 1-10-1993 against the said Magistrate. When the learned Judges issued the present show cause notice on 5-11-1993 as to why Mr. Jose should not be declared a vexatious litigant, he filed CCC 275 of 1993 against the learned Judges of this Court who issued the show notice on 5-11-1993 in the Division Bench. That petition contained scandalous allegations. That Contempt Case was dismissed by us on 30-11-1993. On the same day, we registered CCC 281/93 in regard to the scurrilous allegations he made against the Hon'ble Judges who issued the present show cause notice dated 5-11-1993 in his CCC 275 of 1993 and in his written objection dated 10-1-1993 and affidavit dated 17-11-1993. In CCC 281 of 1993 which we registered against Jose, he reiterated in open Court before us on 30-11-1993 all the allegations in the said objection petition dated 10-1-1993 and affidavit dated 17-11-1993 and in CCC 275 of 1993. On the ground that it amounted to Contempt in the face of the Court, we passed an order of interim detention on 30-11-1993 pending disposal of the Contempt Case, CCC 281 of 1993. He was sent to Jail from the Court. Thereafter, we took up CCC 281 of 1993 on 16-12-1993 and we rejected an apology dated 9-12-1993 filed by him inasmuch as he had, while under interim detention, sent communications which were also contemptuous in nature. On 16-12-1993, we convicted him and sentenced him to three months Simple Imprisonment and allowed deduction of the period covered by interim detention. He has since been released.
4. Thereafter, this show cause notice dated 5-11-1993 issued by the earlier Division Bench as to why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant, has been taken up. Mr. Jose wanted legal aid which was granted and now Mr. Johnson Manayani is appearing for him. We heard him. Mr. J
AI
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
