Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!

Scanned Judgements…!

Filing of Two Identical Interlocutory Applications: An Impropriety and Abuse

Main Points and Insights

• Repeated Filing of Identical Applications: Several cases demonstrate parties filing multiple interlocutory applications (IAs) on the same or similar grounds, often without new grounds or substantial reasons. For example, APPLICATION NO. 130884/2018 and INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION NO. 81420/2018 involve delay condonation applications that are similar in nature, indicating repetitive efforts ["MEGHRAJ S/D/W/Thru:- PHOOL CHAND KIRAR : VILLAGE KHITWAL, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH vs DEVENDRA SINGH S/D/W/Thru:- NEPAL SINGH : VILLAGE JAIT, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH - Supreme Court"].

• Legal Implication of Repetition: Courts have consistently viewed such repetitive filings as an abuse of process, designed to delay proceedings or harass the opposite party. For instance, Application failed in revisional matters where the same grounds were repeatedly raised, violating principles of finality and efficiency ["PANCHANAN KARMAKAR VS ANANDAMOY KARMAKAR - Calcutta"].

• Prohibition on Multiple Revisions and Applications on Same Facts: The law bars parties from filing multiple revision applications on identical facts, as reinforced by judgments like Nivedita Roy AIR 1991 Calcutta 262, which states, a party once choosing the revisional jurisdiction... cannot again prefer a revision in either of the two courts ["PANCHANAN KARMAKAR VS ANANDAMOY KARMAKAR - Calcutta"].

• Court's Discretion Against Frivolous Applications: Courts have shown a tendency to dismiss or reject such applications to prevent abuse, emphasizing that they should not be used as tools for delaying justice. For example, Application for condonation of delay and applications for exemption from filing official translation are often dismissed if filed repetitively without valid reasons ["MEGHRAJ S/D/W/Thru:- PHOOL CHAND KIRAR : VILLAGE KHITWAL, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH vs DEVENDRA SINGH S/D/W/Thru:- NEPAL SINGH : VILLAGE JAIT, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH - Supreme Court"], ["MEGHRAJ S/D/W/Thru:- PHOOL CHAND KIRAR : VILLAGE KHITWAL, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH vs DEVENDRA SINGH S/D/W/Thru:- NEPAL SINGH : VILLAGE JAIT, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH - Supreme Court"].

• Consequences of Filing Multiple Similar Applications: Filing identical or similar interlocutory applications repeatedly can lead to adverse judicial observations, including dismissals and warnings against abuse of process, as seen in multiple instances where courts have refused to entertain such applications ["MEGHRAJ S/D/W/Thru:- PHOOL CHAND KIRAR : VILLAGE KHITWAL, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH vs DEVENDRA SINGH S/D/W/Thru:- NEPAL SINGH : VILLAGE JAIT, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH - Supreme Court"].

Analysis and Conclusion

The consistent judicial stance across these cases underscores that filing two or more identical interlocutory applications constitutes an abuse of process and an impropriety. Such conduct is viewed as an attempt to delay proceedings or harass the opposition, contravening the principles of fair and efficient judicial administration. Courts are justified in dismissing or rejecting such applications to uphold the integrity of proceedings and prevent misuse of legal procedures.

References:- Application failed and repeated applications on same grounds are considered an abuse ["PANCHANAN KARMAKAR VS ANANDAMOY KARMAKAR - Calcutta"]- Courts have barred multiple revisions on identical facts, emphasizing finality ["PANCHANAN KARMAKAR VS ANANDAMOY KARMAKAR - Calcutta"]- Repetitive interlocutory applications, especially for delay condonation or exemption, are often dismissed as abuse ["MEGHRAJ S/D/W/Thru:- PHOOL CHAND KIRAR : VILLAGE KHITWAL, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH vs DEVENDRA SINGH S/D/W/Thru:- NEPAL SINGH : VILLAGE JAIT, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH - Supreme Court"], ["MEGHRAJ S/D/W/Thru:- PHOOL CHAND KIRAR : VILLAGE KHITWAL, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH vs DEVENDRA SINGH S/D/W/Thru:- NEPAL SINGH : VILLAGE JAIT, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH - Supreme Court"]- Filing multiple identical applications without new grounds is an improper practice that hampers judicial process ["MEGHRAJ S/D/W/Thru:- PHOOL CHAND KIRAR : VILLAGE KHITWAL, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH vs DEVENDRA SINGH S/D/W/Thru:- NEPAL SINGH : VILLAGE JAIT, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH - Supreme Court"], ["MEGHRAJ S/D/W/Thru:- PHOOL CHAND KIRAR : VILLAGE KHITWAL, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH vs DEVENDRA SINGH S/D/W/Thru:- NEPAL SINGH : VILLAGE JAIT, BUDNI , DISTRICT: SEHORE ,SEHORE , MADHYA PRADESH - Supreme Court"]