IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

COCP-6398-2025

Date of decision: 08.01.2026

PARKASH SINGH ..Petitioner

Versus

RANJODH SINGH HADANA AND ORS ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate

for Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate

for respondents.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. The contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 07.07.2025 passed in CWP-18410- 2025, whereby, respondens were directed to decide the legal notice dated

01.05.2025 by passing a speaking order.

2. On asking of the Court, Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents and contends that in compliance of order dated 07.07.2025, order dated 21.08.2025 has been passed. The copy of the same has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner and also taken

on record.

3. Despite the fact that order dated 07.07.2025 has already been complied with, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition, which is not even maintainable. This amounts to gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this

Court.

4. Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as “Payal Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha IAS and others”, while placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022”. The relevant paragraphs of Payal Chaudhary (supra) are reproduced as under:-

“9. It is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. Such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and meritless petitions, and adopting dilatory tactics undermines the very foundation of our legal system and clogs the administration of justice.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, has cautioned against this emerging category of unscrupulous litigants who, devoid of respect for truth, resort to falsehood and unethical practices in their pursuit of relief. The Supreme Court emphatically held that such litigants, who seek to pollute the stream of justice or who dare to touch the fountain of justice with unclean hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Relevant extracts of the same is reproduce as under:- “In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. Courts have evolved new principles to curb such abuse, and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

11. The petitioner’s conduct in instituting frivolous litigation has resulted in a gross misuse of the judicial process, thereby squandering the valuable time and resources of this Court. It is imperative, in the interest of justice, that bona fide and timely claims are adjudicated expeditiously, without being impeded by vexatious and unscrupulous litigation. At this juncture, reference may be made to the pertinent observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470, wherein the Court lamented the pervasive malaise of frivolous litigation afflicting the Indian judicial system. The Hon’ble Ape