Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
PARESH UPADHYAY, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
Azizul Karim & Others - Appellant
Versus
P.S. Kirubakaran - Respondent
O.S.A. Nos. 254 & 255 of 2022
Decided On : 30-09-2022
For the Appellants:R. Natarajan, Advocate. For the Respondents:M. Nandhakumar, Advocate.
The court's decision highlighted the importance of preventing abuse of process of law and vexatious litigation, as well as the authority of the learned Advocate-General under The Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949.
Headnote:
Withdrawal - Transfer of Suits - C.S.No.212 of 2017 - O.S.No.4150 of 2020, O.S.No.1385 of 2019 - The Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the order transferring two suits from the XIX Assistant City Civil Court to the High Court to be tried along with C.S.No.212 of 2017. The appellant repeatedly failed to appear before the court, and the court found prima facie evidence of abuse of process of law and vexatious litigation by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not entitled to any relief and observed prima facie abuse of process of law and vexatious litigation by the appellant. The court declined the request for withdrawal of the appeals and allowed the respondents to make an application to the learned Advocate-General under The Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949.
Issues: Failure of the appellant to appear, abuse of process of law, vexatious litigation, and transfer of suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the repeated failure of the appellant to appear, prima facie evidence of abuse of process of law and vexatious litigation, and the provisions of The Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with observations regarding the abuse of process of law and vexatious litigation by the appellant. No costs were awarded, and the papers of C.S.No.212 of 2017 were to be placed before the appropriate Court on the date fixed by that Court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: O.S.A.No.254 of 2022: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 07.09.2022 made in A.No.3333 of 2022 in C.S.No.212 of 2017.
O.S.A.No.255 of 2022: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 07.09.2022 made in A.No.3331 of 2022 in C.S.No.212 of 2017.)
Common Judgment:
Paresh Upadhyay, J.
1. Challenge in these appeals is made to the common order dated 07.09.2022 recorded on Application Nos.3331 and 3333 of 2022 in C.S.No.212 of 2017. These appeals are by the original plaintiff of C.S.No.212 of 2017 and the contesting respondent in the Application Nos.3331 and 3333 of 2022. The relevant part of the impugned order reads as under:-
“That the suits in O.S.No.4150 of 2020 and O.S.No.1385 of 2019 on the file of the XIX Assistant City Civil Court Chennai be and is hereby withdrawn from the file of the said court and the same suits are hereby transferred to this Hon'ble Court, to be tried along with C.S.No.212 of 2017.”
2. These appeals were firstly listed for hearing on 22.09.2022. Learned advocate for the appellant was heard at length. On conclusion of the hearing, when the Court was not inclined to interfere in the order under challenge, learned Advocate for the appellant requested for adjournment to seek instruction from the appellant, as to whether the appellant intends to withdraw this appeal or he wishes to invite order on merits. For this limited purpose, the matter was adjourned for one day i.e. 23.09.2022.
3. On 23.09.2022, learned advocate for the appellant did not remain present, though the matter was called out more than once. The grievance on behalf of the contesting respondent was also noted in the order. The matter was adjourned to 26.09.2022.
4. On 26.09.2022 also, learned advocate for the appellant did not remain present. It was adjourned to 27.09.2022.
5. On 27.09.2022, the following order was passed:-
“Challenge in these appeals is made to common order dated 07.09.2022 recorded on Application Nos.3331 and 3333 of 2022 in C.S.No.212 of 2017.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff of C.S.No.212 of 2017. The defendants therein filed applications before learned single Judge inter alia pointing out that two suits being O.S. No.4150 of 2020 and O.S. No.1385 of 2019 on the file of XIX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, be transferred to the file of the High Court to be tried along with C.S.No.212 of 2017. Those applications came to be allowed by learned Single Judge which is challenged by the plaintiff of C.S.No.212 of 2017 and the respondents of A.No.3331 of 2022 in these two appeals.
3. We have considered the reasons recorded by learned single Judge, as to why these three suits need to be heard together and further, why they need to be heard by this Court, instead of City Civil Court.
4. After hearing learned Advocate for the Appellant, on 22.09.2022, when the Court was not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, request was made on behalf of the appellant for adjournment next day, so that it can be informed to the Court as to whether the appellant intends to withdraw the appeals or invites order on merits. As requested on behalf of the appellant, the matter was again listed on 23.09.2022.
5. On 23.09.2022, the following order was passed:-
“1. Challenge in these appeals is made to the order dated 07.09.2022 recorded on Application Nos.3331 and 3333 of 2022 in C.S.No.212 of 2017. This appeal is by the original plaintiff of C.S.No.212 of 2017 and the contesting respondent in the Application Nos.3331 and 3333 of 2022.
2. Learned single Judge has passed the following order:- “That the suits in O.S.No.4150 of 2020 and O.S.No.1385 of 2019 on the file of the XIX Assistant City Civil Court Chennai be and is hereby withdrawn from the file of the said court and the same suits are hereby transferred to this Hon'ble Court, to be tried along w
