Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 2263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Deepak Gupta, J.
Smt. Rani Kukreja…Petitioner
Versus.
Smt. Prabha Bhagra & Ors. …Respondents.
CMPMO No.185 of 2011.
Date of Decision: 28.6.2011.
For the Petitioner Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1. M/s B.R. Verma & Rajiv Sood, Advocates.
Litigants must approach the Court with clean hands, disclose all material facts, and refrain from attempting to mislead the Court. The Court has the duty to reject vexatious litigation and ensure full and fair disclosure of facts. The Trial Court must adhere to well-recognized principles when granting or refusing interim injunctions.
Headnote:
Concealment of Material Facts - Civil Suit - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Contempt of Courts Act - The judgment discusses the concealment of material facts by the plaintiff in a civil suit, leading to the quashing of the stay order granted by the Trial Court. The defendant is permitted to move an application for striking off the suit and/or rejection of the suit on the ground that it discloses no cause of action. The plaintiff is burdened with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000 for concealing material facts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants, claiming possession of land and seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendant approached the Court, praying for striking off the plaint and initiating contempt proceedings against the plaintiff, alleging that she obtained orders by suppressing material facts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff concealed material facts about previous litigation, attempted to mislead the Court, and filed a fresh suit without disclosing the earlier litigation. The Court quashed the stay order granted by the Trial Court and permitted the defendant to move an application for striking off the suit. The plaintiff was burdened with exemplary costs for concealing material facts.
Issues: Concealment of material facts, abuse of the power of the Court, vexatious litigation, striking off the plaint, contempt proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the duty of litigants to approach the Court with clean hands, disclose all material facts, and refrain from attempting to mislead the Court. It cited legal principles from various judgments to support the rejection of vexatious litigation and the need for full and fair disclosure of facts. The Court also highlighted the duty of the Trial Court to adhere to well-recognized principles when granting or refusing interim injunctions.
Final Decision: The stay order granted by the Trial Court was quashed, and the plaintiff was burdened with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000 for concealing material facts. The defendant was permitted to move an application for striking off the suit and/or rejection of the suit on the ground that it discloses no cause of action. The Trial Court was directed to decide this application and, if necessary, recommend initiation of action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the plaintiff.
- Litigants must approach the Court with clean hands, fully disclose all material facts, and avoid misleading the Court, as failure to do so warrants rejection of relief. (!) [18000127920006][18000127920007][18000127920008] (!) (!) (!) [18000127920010] (!) [18000127920012] (!) (!) (!) (!)
- The plaintiff filed an earlier suit for specific performance of agreements to sell land, which was decreed at trial but reversed on appeal due to a forged endorsement, and ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court. [18000127920001][18000127920002]
- After losing the prior suit, heirs of the original owner sold the same land to the petitioner (defendant No. 5). [18000127920003]
- In the new suit, the plaintiff claimed adverse possession of the same land and sought permanent prohibitory injunction, annexing the prior agreement but omitting all details of the previous litigation. [18000127920003] (!) [18000127920004][18000127920005][18000127920006][18000127920007]
- The trial court granted an ex parte status quo order without service on all parties and without recording findings on prima facie case, irreparable injury, or balance of convenience. (!) [18000127920004][18000127920020][18000127920024]
- Concealment of prior litigation, especially a loss up to the Supreme Court on the same subject matter, constitutes abuse of process and fraud on the court. [18000127920006][18000127920007][18000127920013][18000127920018][18000127920019]
- Plaintiff's possession, if any, was permissive under the agreement, not hostile, undermining the adverse possession claim. [18000127920017]
- Trial courts must apply well-recognized principles for interim injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC: prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience, and no alternate remedy. [18000127920020][18000127920021] (!) [18000127920022] (!) (!) [18000127920023] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [18000127920024]
- Courts should reject vexatious suits at threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC if no cause of action is disclosed, and consider exemplary costs or contempt for suppression of facts. [18000127920009] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [18000127920025]
- Doctrine of constructive res judicata bars re-litigation of claims or issues that could and should have been raised earlier. [18000127920013] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [18000127920015]
- The stay order is quashed; defendant permitted to seek rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; trial court to decide expeditiously and consider contempt recommendation if warranted; plaintiff burdened with Rs. 1,00,000 exemplary costs. [18000127920025][18000127920026]
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This is a rather unusual case where the petitioner-defendant has approached this Court at the very threshold of the suit praying that the plaint in case No. 59-1 of 2011 be struck off and contempt proceedings be initiated against the plaintiff for instituting vexatious proceedings after concealing material facts.
2. This case has a long and chequered history. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) first filed a Civil Suit No. 11 of 1999 in this Court against Smt. Jayanti Devi, Smt. Prabha Singh, Ms. Shelja Singh and Ms. Girja Singh. The aforesaid four defendants were the legal heirs of late Kr. Ranvijay Singh being his mother, widow and minor children. According to the plaintiff, she had earlier purchased two bighas of land from late Kr. Ranvijay Singh comprised in khasra No. 245/41/3 and entered into possession thereupon. According to her, after she had purchased this land on 30.7.1994, she entered into another agreement for providing a road to this land and consequently late Kr. Ranvijay Singh entered into an agreement with her on 30.7.1994, agreeing to sell one biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 245/41/1 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. It was further alleged that late Kr. Ranvijay Singh was also the owner of other portion of land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas and he agreed to sell this land comprised in khasra No. 42 measuring 18 biswas and khasra No. 249/44 measuring 12 biswas in all 1 bigha 10 biswas to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- vide agreement dated 1.7.1995. Plaintiff claimed that she had paid substantial amount in advance and the balance was to be paid later on. She also claimed that she had been put in possession of the land measuring 1-10 bighas which included 1 biswa of land of the road. She claimed that she had enclosed and fenced the land. She specifically stated that the cause of action arose on 30.7.1994 when agreement for transfer of land was entered into and this became part of the agreement dated 1.7.1995 and cause of action again arose on 1.7.1995. This suit was later on transferred to the court of learned District Judge, Shimla due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction.
3. The defendant in that case contested the suit. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit. Thereafter, defendant filed an appeal in this Court. One of the main issues which arose in the suit was, whether the same is within limitation. The plaintiff relied upon an endorsement dated 30th June, 1996, according to it, the agreement dated 1st July, 1995 had been renewed. A learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the endorsement dated 30th June, 1996 was a forged and fictitious endorsement and not executed by late Kr. Ranvijay Singh and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff filed a Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 4198 of 2010 before the Apex Court which was dismissed on 19.2.2010.
4. In the meantime, Smt. Jayanti Devi had expired. Sh. Anirudh Singh and Smt. Prabha Singh on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children executed a sale deed in favour of the present petitioner qua 1 bigha 10 biswas of land. It is not disputed that the land which was sold to the present petitioner is the same which was the subject matter of the earlier suit. Thereafter the plaintiff filed another suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Shimla against Sh. Anirudh Singh, Prabha Singh, Shelja Singh, Girja Singh and the present petitioner Rani Kukreja. It is interesting to note that some of the averments made in this suit are virtually identical and lifted from the previous suit. Now, the plaintiff claimed that she had been put in possession of the entire suit land and she was coming in possession of the same continuously, uninterruptedly, openly and with a hostile animus to the true owners and, therefore, her adverse possession had ripened into t
