Back
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
V.K. Bist, J.
Jasbir Singh - Revisionist
Versus
Jiyorjina Chiu and another - Respondents
Civil Revision No.40 of 2012
Decided On : July 15, 2013
Abuse of Process of Law - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order 21 Rule 97 - SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990 - Summary Eviction - Adverse Possession - Finality of Judgments - Abuse of Process of Law
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a property dispute where a landlord filed a Small Cause Suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the tenant. After a series of legal battles, the landlord obtained a favorable judgment from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the tenant's brother, the revisionist, filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming adverse possession and challenging the eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the revisionist's objections were an abuse of process of law, as the eviction case against the tenant had attained finality after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court also noted that the revisionist's claim of adverse possession was made to delay the execution proceedings, and he did not come to the Court with clean hands.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the revisionist's objections under Order 21 Rule 97, the claim of adverse possession, and the abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the revisionist's objections were an abuse of process of law, as the eviction case had already attained finality after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court also emphasized that the revisionist did not come to the Court with clean hands and filed the objections to delay the execution proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court affirmed the judgment passed by the learned District Judge and dismissed the revision.
V.K. Bist, J.
This is a case where a landlord even after winning from the Hon’ble Supreme Court could not get possession of the premises in question and now has been dragged to the Court by another person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead) through LRs, [2012 (2) ARC 325], observed in the following manner:
“Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If a pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent.”
Above observation fully apply in the present case. The landlords were harassed at every stage. Service could be made only by way of publication. When tenant lost from the Hon’ble Apex Court also, the present revisionist started litigation by filing objection under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C.
2. Facts giving rise to the present revision are that a Small Cause Suit was instituted by one Km. Patricia Francis against Shri Ghanshyam Dogra before the Court of Judge Small Cause Court/District Judge, Dehradun, for his eviction and recovery of rent, which was registered as SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990 “Km. Patricia Francis Vs. Ghanshyam Dogra”. In the said suit, it was alleged that Shri Ghanshyam Dogra was the tenant in premises in question and after terminating his tenancy, suit for eviction was filed. On the other hand, Shri Ghanshyam Dogra denied relationship of landlord and tenant. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004, the learned Judge SCC/ District Judge, Dehradun dismissed SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990. Km. Patricia Francis, feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004, filed Civil Revision no. 50 of 2004 before this Court. In the meantime, Km. Patricia Francis passed away and was substituted by her legal representatives. This Court allowed Civil Revision no. 50 of 2004 on 06.04.2010 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004, and decreed SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990 in favour of landlord, directing eviction of tenant Ghanshyam Dogra. Against the said judgment, Shri Ghanshyam Dogra preferred Special Leave Petition No. 17086 of 2010 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed summarily vide order dated 05.08.2011. Shri Ghanshyam Dogra thereafter, preferred review petition for reviewing the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2010 before this Court. Same was dismissed on 01.09.2011 against which Special Leave Petition was preferred before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also met the same fate and consequently, was dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2011. Thereafter, decree holder filed Execution Case no. 1 of 2011 “Jiyorjina Chiu Vs. Ghanshyam Dogra” before the Court of Judge SCC/ District Judge, Dehradun, in which notices were issued and thereafter, execution proceeded. On 15.02.2012, revisionist came to know about filing of the aforesaid SCC Execution Case when in the absence of revisionist some person from the Court came to his property and thereafter, he made inquiries by engaging a counsel who on 15.02.2012 inspected the file of execution case and came to know about the proceedings of SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990, its decision, judgment of this Court and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is alleged that at that moment, revisionist came to know about filing of the proceedings and its contest by Sri Ghanshyam Dogra, his real brother and till then he was not having any knowledge of the aforesaid proceedings. Thereafter, the revisionist filed his objections under Order 21 Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act 1887 before the Court of Judge SCC/District Judge, Dehradun against Execution Case no. 1 of 2011, which was registered as SCC Misc. Case 1 of 2012 “Jasbir Singh Vs. Jiy
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
