Telangana High Court
M/S Super Build India Private Ltd vs Sanjay Agrawal on 29 April, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 471 of 2021
Between:
M/s Super Build India Private Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director, Bhupendra Surti
... Appellant
AND
Sanjay Agrawal & another
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 29.04.2022
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes
___________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
2
* HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 471 of 2021
% 29.04.2022
Between
M/s Super Build India Private Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director, Bhupendra Surti
... Appellant
AND
Sanjay Agrawal & another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Appellant : Sri B. Shyam Sunder Rao
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri A. Najeeb Khan
Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Assistant Public Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 2000(5) SCC 668
(20111) 8 SCC 249
(2011) 8 SCC 161
3
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 471 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. is filed aggrieved by the rejection of I.A(SR) No. 2037 of 2021 in O.S.No. 69 of 2017, vide order dated 02.07.2021 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.
2. Appellant is defendant and Respondent No.1 is plaintiff in the suit. For convenience sake, parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. Plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.79,63,802/- and damages at Rs.5,00,000/- per month from 23.12.2016 till handing over vacant possession of suit schedule property. In the said suit, defendant filed the subject I.A. to charge plaintiff and commit the matter to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court concerned to prosecute plaintiff for filing false statements under oath in affidavit, deposition and plaint and initiate proceedings for perjury for infringement of rights and harassment using the Court as a tool. Defendant claims that facts mentioned in the suit by plaintiff are contrary to his own statements. It is stated that plaintiff obtained crores of rupees as loan from Bank of India by depositing the title deeds of subject property 'under Memorandum of deposit of title deeds by constructive delivery' and further, suit schedule property remained with bank as collateral security for securing the due repayment and discharge by company to bank by a registered company in the name and style of M/s 4 Team Universal Infratech Private Limited and the bank informed defendant that plaintiff obtained loan on false representation. It is stated that plaintiff has no right over the property as he had given declaration that suit schedule property is not subject matter of any suit or legal proceeding nor any attachment before judgment nor has any trust secret or otherwise been created in respect of the said properties. It is stated that as per the conditions of agreement with bank, plaintiff shall not enter into any kind of agreement or not even enter any lease agreement nor he can file a case on the subject property. It is also stated that defendant paid rents up to date and no amount is due and payable and further advance rents are lying with plaintiff. It is further stated that the present I.A. was filed in the pending case to bring to the notice of the Court the above facts. The said I.A. was rejected vide order impugned by the learned Judge stating that at the fag end of the case after orders and directions of the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.753 of 2021, the present Application was filed which exhibits the conduct of defendant and further, it had not complied with the orders in Civil Revision Petition No. 759 of 2020.
4. At the outset, it is to be noted that questioning the very maintainability of the Appeal, Registry has taken an objection which reads as under:
" As verified from the material, WPSR No. 20458 of 2021 was filed earlier with the same relief sought for in the above Criminal Appeal(SR) and on the Office objections, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Court before which the matter was sought to be withdrawn and while cautioning the learned counsel for the petitioner to be more careful in future before filing such untenable petitions invoking the powers of Judicial Review of the Court, leave as prayed for was granted (order at material page No. 24). Further, 5 as verified from the material filed the suit itself was disposed of (order at material page No. 33) against which appeal suit can be filed with the grounds urged herein.
In view of the above, please clarify how this Criminal Appeal is entertainable against the order dated 02.07.2021 in I.A(SR) No. 69 of 2017 rejecting the Application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. without availing alternative remedy."
5. Learned counsel for appellant resubmitted the Appeal stating that an Application under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. can be filed even after conclusion of the proceedings as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Wazir Singh v. Kulwanth Singh (1997 SCC Online P&H 1984). It is also submitted that when the Application for perjury was rejected by the Court below, the Appeal needs to be filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C. and he has drawn the attention of the Court to para 11 of the judgment dated 30.04.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2020 by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Lakshmi v. Santha. This Court has passed the following order:
" In a case where an order under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is passed by a subordinate Court in a civil matter, a Division Bench of this Court in Jose Joseph v. Syndicate Bank (MANU/KE/0214/1997 : (1997(1) KLT 320 : ILR 1997(2) Ker.231) held that the Court which had passed the order being the Sub- Court, which is a civil Court from whose decree appeals ordinarily lie, it has to be held that there are two Courts, the District Court and the High Court which are the Courts to which appeals ordinarily lie. Since there are two Courts to which the appeals lie from the Sub- Court, the provisions in the Proviso to Section 194(4) will also have to be applied to find out the particular Court to which the Subordinate Court is subordinate for the purpose of S. 195(1)(b). On the facts of the said case, it is held that the Appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. would lie against an order passed by a Sub-Court to the District Court concerned.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard submissions of the learned counsel, this Court by the 6 order dated 29.11.2021, overruled the Office Objection and directed the Registry to number the Appeal".
6. Learned counsel for the appellant / tenant Sri B.Shyam Sunder Rao submits that the appellant has filed an Application under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. stating that it is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the property. He suppressed the fact that the property rights are transferred to the Bank of India and he has no legal right to the property. It is submitted that the plaintiff cannot file the suit for eviction, recovery of possession and to receive the arrears of rent as the suit schedule property is under the control of the bank as the plaintiff has obtained the loan by depositing the title deeds. It is submitted that the respondent /plaintiff has suppressed these crucial issues which are perjurious in nature. It is submitted that as per the memorandum of understanding, the plaintiff cannot enter into any agreement and he cannot even lease out the property. It is further submitted that the tenant has paid the arrears and by making a wrong statement on oath has also asked for the arrears. The owner of the premises has conveniently suppressed the factum of change of ownership before the Court which amounts to perjury. It is further submitted that the person who uses the Court of law for their private and personal vendetta by procuring crores of rupees of public money as loans from banks and misusing the subject property should be punished severely so as to curb the menace of misusing the public money. According to the learned counsel, the offenders should be sternly dealt with without looking at the gender or caste or creed 7 which are not exempted from Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below has dismissed the Application filed under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. observing that the suit is posted for the arguments of the parties. He submits that there is a direction to the court to decide the suit within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in C.R.P.No. 753 of 2021. He further submits that the defendant has come up with the petition at the fag-end after the orders are passed in the C.R.P. It was also observed that 'the petitioner has failed to comply with the orders of the Court in the above-stated C.R.P. Further, it is observed that there are findings of the Court about the alleged false statement so as to maintain the application and even as per the Section note also, there are some objections. Therefore, it is a fit case to reject the Application'. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below gravely erred in dismissing the Application. He submits that by placing the relevant material on record, he could establish that the plaintiff has committed the act of perjury. He submits that on irrelevant considerations, the Court below has dismissed the Application. He submits that at any stage of the proceedings, the appellant can maintain an Application under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. He submits that fraud vitiates everything. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab1 wherein it is observed as under:
1 (2000) 5 SCC 668 8 " Perjury has also become a way of life in the law of courts. A trial judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint... that has made the situation reach such levels where the pleadings contain false averments and parties make false averments with impunity in the hope that in all probability the opposite party will cough up something and even if he does not, in the end he will have last laugh, for a prosecution of perjury, although consciously committed and persisted in, will have a probability of punishment as good as nil. The gain for exceeds the risk."
7. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent / owner Sri A Najeeb Khan submits that O.S.No. 69 of 2017 was filed for eviction of the appellant / tenant and the same was decreed on 10.08.2021 directing the appellant to vacate the suit schedule property within 30 days, to pay a sum of Rs.49,60,500/- within 30 days and liberty was given to file separate petition for claiming mesne profits. It is submitted that the appellant / tenant has filed O.S.No. 605 of 2010 for perpetual injunction against the respondent and the said suit was dismissed on 30.08.2016 as the possession of the appellant is not lawful and the respondent herein got issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.No. 605 of 2010, the appellant filed CCCA No. 321 of 2015 and this Court has disposed of the same with a direction to follow due process of law. He submits that the appellant has admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and as he could not deposit the arrears of rents, the appellant took a new defence that the property is mortgaged with Bank of India and the respondent herein is ceased to be the owner of the property. It is further 9 submitted that the appellant did not choose to question the order dated 02.07.2021 in I.A (SR) No. 2037 of 2021 till the suit is decreed on 10.08.2021 and thereafter, filed W.P(SR) No. 20458 of 2021 to declare the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad rejecting the Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. without assigning reasons. It is also submitted that the appellant has withdrawn W.P(SR) No. 20458 of 2021 on 13.08.2021 with liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has not filed relevant documents which go against his case ie. Orders of the High Court in CRP No. 769 of 2020 dated 06.10.2020 and CRP No. 753 of 2021, dated 21.06.2021. He submits that in the written statement as well as in the counter- affidavit in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017 filed under Order 15A CPC. in O.S.No. 69 of 2017, the appellant has admitted the jural relationship. He further submits that the averment of the appellant that the landlord was demanding cash since the suit schedule property is mortgaged to the bank is false as he has paid rent through cheques and demand drafts.
8. Before adverting to the various submissions made on behalf of either side, it would be appropriate to look at the factual matrix and the nature of litigation between the parties. Parties are referred to as owner and tenant. Appellant before this Court is the tenant and respondent No.1 is the owner.
9. The tenant /appellant has originally filed O.S.No. 605 of 2010 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad seeking perpetual injunction against 10 the owner / respondent on the ground that the defendant therein is threatening the plaintiff to vacate the premises without following due process of law. The said suit was dismissed on 30.08.2016. When the tenant failed to vacate the premises and was not coming forward to hand over the vacant physical possession of the property, he got issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 22.10.2016 and the said notice was returned with an endorsement "no such address in this plot number". It is stated that both the appellant and the respondent entered into a rental agreement on 14.04.2009 for a period of two years. Rent per month was fixed at Rs.1,25,000/- exclusive of maintenance and electricity charges apart from other conditions. After expiry of the lease period, the owner addressed letters on 07.11.2009, 25.03.2010, 01.09.2010, 14.10.2010, but the tenant has not handed over the physical possession. After O.S.No. 605 of 2010 was dismissed, the tenant preferred CCCA No. 221 of 2016 before this Court. In the said judgment, it was observed that O.S.No. 69 of 2017 for eviction has been filed before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and the counsel appeared for the owner, in all fairness, submits that they will not forcibly evict the tenant and that as the suit for eviction has already been filed, they will abide by the orders of the said Court. Accordingly, the CCA was disposed of.
10. The Court below has decreed the suit i.e. O.S.No. 69 of 2017 with costs of Rs.49,60,500/- on 10.08.2021 which is filed by the owner for eviction holding that the plaintiff / owner is entitled for eviction and for a sum of Rs.49,60,500/-. It was also held that 11 by way of a separate Application, he is entitled for mesne profits. The amount of Rs.49,60,500/- was directed to be paid within 30 days from the date of order and failure to deposit the same within 30 days, the plaintiff is entitled for inertest @ 6% per annum. During the pendency of the said suit, in the month of July, the tenant has come up with the present Application to initiate perjury proceedings. The tenant has also filed CRP No. 6356 of 2018, 759 of 2020 and 753 of 2021 before this Court. CRP No. 6356 of 2018 was filed questioning the order passed in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017 dated 2311.2018, whereby the Court below has directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.58,75,000/- up to 31.08.2018 and to continue to deposit every month thereafter and the learned Judge has granted 15 days time to deposit the amount. The impugned order was set aside and directed the Court to decide the issue and till such time, the defence cannot be struck off. There is a further direction to the tenant to pay the monthly rent on or before 7th of each month. Thereafter, CRP No. 759 of 2020 is filed challenging the order dated 25.02.2020 in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017. I.A.was filed to deposit arrears of rent at Rs.1,03,75,334/- failing which to strike off the defence. Against that CRP No. 6356 of 2018 was filed and the same was disposed of as observed above. When the matter was remanded and the Court below started recording evidence in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017 there was an objection from the tenant that as the order was set-aside in C.R.P.No. 6356 of 2018 now evidence can only be decided in the suit but not in the interlocutory application. This Court has observed as under: 12
" The Court below then passed a docket order on 01.07.2019 stating that the High Court had directed to decide the issue with regard to amount of arrears of rent payable by respondent to the petitioner on the basis of evidence led by both parties; that the said direction would mean that the High Court intended recording of evidence by both parties in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017 itself; and since the petitioner had filed chief-examination affidavit in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017, on 25.04.2019, the respondent should cross-examine P.W.1. It also recorded that respondent had not complied with the direction contained in the order dt 23.11.2018 in C.R.P.No. 6356 of 2018 directing the respondent to deposit the rent every month.
In view of non-cooperation by respondent with regard to cross-examination of P.W.1 in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017, and since thee was no revision filed by the respondent against the docket order passed by the Court below on 01.07.2019 in O.S.No. 69 of 2017 intending to record the evidence in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017 itself, the Court below proceeded to pass orders in the I.A.No. 1582 of 2017.
It then took note of the chief-examination of P.W.1, marking of Exs.P1 to P3 and recorded that there was no evidence let in by respondent, and that both parties had filed memos showing calculations about arrears of rent.
It then proceeded to pass an order on 25.02.2020 strangely dismissing I.A. after holding that respondent has to pay Rs.14,66,288/- which was the undisputed amount arrived by the Court below.
Assailing the same, this Revision is filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the Court below did not properly apply its mind to the facts ad also Order XV-A C.P.C. while dismissing I.A.No. 1582 of 2017; it had also taken into account unsigned receipts ExsR-14 and R-15 where under the respondent claimed to have paid R s.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively to the petitioner on 14.02.2014 and 15.09.2014; that it ought to have taken note of the Explanation to Order XV-A C.P.C. and excluded the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- covered by the said two exhibits as well, because there is no written acknowledgment of receipt of said payments by petitioner as per the said Explanation It is also contended that the respondent has not complied with the direction to make payment of future rents on or before 7th of every month as per the directions contained in C.R.P.No. 6356 of 2018 and committed default of the said payment.
On 14.08.2020, this Court directed the respondent to deposit Rs.14,66,288/- determined by the Court below in I.A.No. 1582 of 2017 as payable towards arrears by the next dte of hearing. 13
It is stated by counsel on either side that the said amount was deposited in the Court below pursuant to the said order the mater was again heard on 28.08.2020, 04.09.2020 and 10.09.2020.
Learned counsel for respondent contended that the order passed by the Court below is proper and that the Court below had rightly dismissed I.A.No. 1582 of 2017 after directing the respondent to pay Rs.14,66,288/-. He also contended that Exs.R-14 and R15 were rightly taken into account by the Court below and the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- covered by those two receipts were rightly not included by the Court below while determining the undisputed amount of arrears of rent."
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed observing that :
" Since the amount of Rs.14,66,288/- as already been determined by the Court as arrears of rent, has already been deposited by respondent, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
The respondent is also directed to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- covered by Exs.R-14 and R15 to the credit of the suit along with arrears of rent calculated @ Rs.1,37,500/- p.m. from 01.12.2019 till date within two (02) weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order, if not already paid to the petitioner. On failure to deposit as aforesaid, the defence of the respondent in O.S.No. 69 of 2017 shall stand struck off."
11. Thereafter, C.R.P.No. 753 of 2021 was filed to direct the Court below to dispose of the suit. Within a reasonable time, the said Revision was disposed of on 21.06.2021 wherein it is observed that the order passed in C.R.P.No. 759 of 2020 was not complied with and the defence of the tenant was stuck off. It is observed further as under:
" Thereafter, the Court below appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record cross-examination of the plaintiff/P.W.1. The Cross-examination was conducted on 15.02.2021 and report was filed by the Advocate-Commissioner on 17.02.2021.
Thereafter, instead of proceeding to deliver judgment, the Court below proceeded to hear I.A.NO. 678 of 2019 filed by the respondent under Order XVI Rules 1,2,3 CPC filed in O.S.No. 69 of 2017 to summon a witness from Bank of India, Mumbai with regard 14 to four (4) documents i.e. (a) Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dt. 12.12.2014, (b) Memorandum of deposit of title deeds by constructive delivery dt. 18.12.2014, (c) Supplementary Memorandum of Entry executed on 22.01.2015 regarding extension of equitable security by giving oral assent for constructive delivery of tile deeds, creation of equitable security by deposit of title deeds in respect of immovable properties and creation of charge of Bank of India as collateral security and (d) Deed of Re-conveyance dt. 01.02.2018.
This prayer was made by the respondent contending that the rights of the petitioner / plaintiff stood transferred to the petitioner's lender, Bank of India, and the rights would not be redelivered or released until the whole of the monies, indebtedness and liability of the petitioner to the said lender, intended to be secured by the security / charges by the original deposit / delivery of the title deeds of the suit schedule property, is discharged.
Thus, it is clear that the examination of the said witness in IA No. 678 of 2019 was sought by the respondent to set up a new defence to the suit for recovery of possession filed by the petitioner against the respondent.
The petitioner contended that the documents referred to above were already received by the Court below and were marked in the cross-examination in spite of objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff, but still the respondent / defendant is insisting the Court below to hear I.A. No. 678 of 2019 event though the said I.A. is not maintainable because once the defence of the respondent / defendant is struck off, the respondent / defendant is not entitled to lead any evidence of his own, nor can his cross- examination of plaintiff's witnesses be permitted to travel beyond the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the petitioner's / plaintiff's case.
In this view of the matter, I strongly deprecate the attitude of the Court below in not proceeding to pass judgment in the suit O.S.No. 69 of 2017 after considering the evidence on record, i.e. the evidence of P.W.1 which has been subjected to cross-examination and instead, allowing the defendant, whose defence has been struck off, to adduce not only documentary evidence but also oral evidence by summoning an employee of Bank of India, Mumbai to give evidence.
In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in exercise of power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. I.A.No. 678 of 2019 in O.S.No. 69 of 2017 filed by the respondent is dismissed in limine as not maintainable and the III 15 Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad i directed to proceed to hear arguments of the parties and decide the suit within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
It shall also keep in mind the principle laid down in the above decisions that the defendant will not be allowed to produce any evidence and so it shall eschew from consideration any portion of the cross-examination of P.W.1 which refers to the documents mentioned above. The respondent shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks."
12. After this order is passed in the C.R.P., the tenant has come up with Writ Petition (SR) No. 20458 of 2021 challenging the order dated 02.07.2021 and thereafter, filed the present Appeal.
13. In the light of the chequered litigation that is going on from 2010, the admitted or the undisputed facts are that rental agreement is executed between the appellant and the respondent / owner for a period of two years with effect from 17.04.2010 and the same would expire on 16.04.2011. The tenant / appellant could successfully litigate this for a period of 12 years taking advantage of the procedural aspects and by filing one Application after the other. Appellant being a tenant as per the agreement, he can be in possession for a period of two years. Now by virtue of the litigation, he could successfully maintain the position without even paying the rent for years together. The material on record reveals that appellant / tenant has no respect to the rule of law and the orders passed by the Courts. While CRP No. 6356 of 2018 was disposed of on 24.09.2018 directing the Court below to further conduct enquiry, petitioner / tenant refused to proceed with the matter which gave rise to C.R.P.No. 750 of 2020. In spite of the orders passed by this Court on 06.10.2020, tenant failed to pay the amount and his defence was struck off. In C.R.P.No. 753 of 16 2021, this Court has observed the conduct of the appellant and directed the Court to dispose of the suit, by order dated 17.04.2021, within four weeks. The Appellant has come up with the present Application. In the instant Application, his grievance is that the owner of the property has mortgaged the property in favour of the bank as such he ceased to be the owner of the property and such important aspect was not placed before this Court and it amounts to perjury. In C.R.P.No. 753 of 2021, this Court has categorically observed that the entire defence of the appellant is struck off as such he has no right to maintain an Application to call the bank officer or to examine anymore.
14. The object of Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether any offence affecting the administration of justice has been committed in relation to any proceedings before or any documents produced given in evidence in Court and whether it is in the interest of justice to take such action. The Court should also take up the action in the interest of justice and not for satisfying the personal grudge of the litigant.
15. The appellant / tenant does not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to him, mortgaging the property to the bank was not disclosed and suppressing the said fact is perjury. Even if the mortgage is executed in favour of bank, the owner / respondent can still enjoy the property. How that facts are essential for deciding the suit for eviction is material this Court is not able to understand.
16. Looking at the facts of this case and the manner in which successfully a litigation is run for several years reminds a 17 saying that the trend in the rental matters is that 'fools build the houses and wise men live in it'. With these kind of litigations, people lose hope in the system and it is also a classic example how a frivolous litigation can be fought and dragged for years. This is nothing but pure abuse of process of court as the intent of the tenant is to continue with the possession by hook or crook. Courts have to be strict and have a perfect vigilance on these kind of abuse and shall curb this kind of menace. No litigant shall be permitted to misuse the process of justice by filing frivolous petitions. Easy access to justice shall not give right to file misconceived petitions.
17. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial Courts while dealing with the civil trials:
A. Pleadings are the foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trail Judge to carefully scrutinise, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.
B. The court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object to the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at the truth of the matter and doing substantial justice. C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and / or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.18
D. The court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits. E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex pate ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing the parties concerned appropriate orders should be passed.
F. Litigants who obtained ex pate ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the Court.
G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice. H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance wit the well- settled principles of law and justice.
I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided. J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare a complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of the judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said timetable as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed."
RamRameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi2
18. In consonance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience Judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonestly and any attempt to abuse the legal process must be 2 (2011) 8 SCC 249 19 effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of the process of the court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the respondent or the defendant has in fact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. No one should be permitted to use the judicial process for earning underserved gains or unjust profits. The court must effectively discourage fraudulent, unscrupulous and dishonest litigation.
The court's constant endeavour must be to ensure that everyone gets just and fair treatment. The court while rendering justice must adopt a pragmatic approach and in appropriate cases realistic costs and compensation be ordered in order to discourage dishonest litigation. The object and true meaning of the concept of restitution cannot be achieved or accomplished unless the courts adopt a pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases.
This Court in a very recent case Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249, had an occasion to deal with similar questions of law regarding imposition of realistic costs and restitution. One of us (Bhandari.J) was the author of the judgment. It was observed in that case as under: (SCC pp. 268-69, paras 54-55)
54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and 20 other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter-affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee, etc.
55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years."
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India3
19. This Court exercising the inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice is inclined to dismiss the appeal with costs.
20. The litigation which is started in the year 2010 is successfully continuing till 2022 taking advantage of procedural lapses and delays. The Court below has rightly dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. The litigants like the appellant are taking advantage of the judicial process and causing hardship to other side. These kind of litigants are consuming most of the Court time by which for a genuine litigant justice is both delayed and denied. It is high-time that the courts should dispel the impression of the chronic litigants and courts shall not spare the litigants who have come to the Court with unclean hands and also without any basis and for the purpose of gaining undue advantage.
3 (2011) 8 SCC 161 21
20. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) payable to the 1st respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 29th April 2022 LR copy ksld