Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sushma Aggarwal vs Rajeev Aggarwal And Others on 22 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2024:HHC:12160 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 613/2024 Decided on: 22.11.2024 Sushma Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus Rajeev Aggarwal and others ....Respondents. ........................................................................................... Coram Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Respondent No.4 ex-parte.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Eviction order was passed against the judgment debtor in the year 2011. Decree holder's execution petition filed in the year 2011 is still pending. Petitioner is daughter of the judgment debtor & has filed third party objections to the execution petition. While objections filed by the parties were being heard, petitioner filed an application seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the ground of some findings having been recorded against the decree holder in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2
( 2024:HHC:12160 ) a judgment & decree dismissing the civil suit instituted by her. The executing Court ordered listing of application for hearing alongwith other objections. A few days later, petitioner moved another application seeking decision on her previous application, prior in time to the decision on objections. The second application met with the same fate. In the process of considering the applications, execution proceedings were adjourned from time to time. When execution petition was finally taken up for hearing alongwith objections & applications, the petitioner moved yet another application seeking amendment of her objections. This application was dismissed, but became the cause for more adjournments in the execution petition. Petitioner thereafter unsuccessfully challenged before this Court, the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing her application seeking amendment of the objections. About two weeks later petitioner instituted present petition now challenging two previous orders passed by the executing Court ordering listing of her applications for consideration & decision alongwith main objections. This petition is being contested by the respondent-decree holder primarily on the grounds of abuse of process of Court & petitioner's allegedly bench hunting.
2. Facts leading to filing of this petition 2(i) Respondent No.1-Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal is the decree holder, whereas respondent No.2-Smt. Radha Rani is the judgment 3 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) debtor. Eviction Petition preferred by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 was allowed on 17.03.2011. Respondent No.1 set out to enforce the eviction order and preferred Execution Petition No.405-10 of 2022/11 on 23.04.2011 against respondent No.2. The present petitioner Smt. Sushma Aggarwal is the daughter of respondent No.2/judgment debtor-Smt. Radha Rani. 2(ii) Petitioner instituted a Civil Suit No.47-1 of 2011 for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction on 04.05.2011 against respondents No.1 & 2 (who were impleaded as defendants No.4 & 6, respectively in the Civil Suit). One of the issues framed in the civil suit was as under:-
"8. Whether eviction order has been obtained by defendant No.4 in collusion with the defendant No.6, if so its effect?" OPP The Civil Suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 12.01.2024. The findings on Issue No.8 were returned against the petitioner as under:-
"Issue Number 8:
68. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the premises regarding which defendant No. 4 filed eviction petition was constructed by her or her mother. She has also failed to establish that it was constructed by her father Sh. Mam Raj. It is clear from the record that the plaintiff was married in the year 1992 and she was living in Delhi. Admittedly, her mother Smt. Radha Rani was living in the suit property, against whom defendant No. 4 Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal filed a petition for eviction, copy Ext.PW-10/A on the grounds of subletting in favour of Sh. Ram Krishan, the husband of the 4 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) plaintiff and arrears of rent. This petition was filed on 20.12.2010. The mother of the plaintiff filed reply Ext.PW-10/B on 12.01.2011 and admitted the claim of the petitioner namely Rajiv Aggarwal. On the basis of her admission, vide order dated 17.03.2011, copy Ext.PW-6/B, eviction order was passed on both the grounds. In the aforesaid eviction petition, the mother of the plaintiff was duly represented by Sh. Rupesh Sharma, Advocate. She filed her reply which was duly supported with an affidavit. The plaintiff filed an application for her impleadment in the aforesaid petition. However, her application was dismissed on 11.03.2011 as she failed to produce any document of her title.
69. Defendant No. 4 filed execution and then Smt. Radha Rani, filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97, copy Ext.PW-10/C stating therein that she was offered shop at Middle Bazaar 2 and 3 and was pressurized to sign the reply which she filed in the eviction petition and as such, the order was obtained with an intention to defraud the court. These objections were filed on 16.09.2013. The mother of the plaintiff has been arrayed as defendant No. 8 in the present suit. She did not appear in the witness box to testify these facts and to face the cross- examination. She preferred to be heard exparte. She did not file any complaint before any authority that her signatures were fraudulently taken by the defendant No. 4. When she filed reply in the court and admitted the claim of the defendant No. 4 and she was also represented by a counsel, it cannot be said that she had signed the reply under pressure. Since she has not appeared into the witness box to face cross-examination, it cannot be concluded that the defendant No. 4 obtained the order by committing fraud. Accordingly, this issue is decided in negative."
In its judgment & decree dated 12.01.2024, while dismissing petitioner's Civil Suit, learned Trial Court inter-alia held that eviction order dated 17.03.2011 was passed in favour of respondent No.1 on the basis of admission made by respondent 5 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) No.2. That the present petitioner had moved an application for her impleadment in the execution petition instituted by respondent No.1, but her application was dismissed on 11.03.2011 as she had failed to produce any documents of her title. The findings on the above issue were against the present petitioner. While dismissing the Civil Suit instituted by the present petitioner, learned Trial Court in its judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 inter-alia also observed as under regarding a Will allegedly executed by Smt. Darshani Devi- grand-mother of respondent No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 (in the Civil Suit including present respondent No.1):-
"77. In this case, the mutation No. 1330 was attested on the basis of will allegedly executed by Smt. Darshani Devi in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants played fraud and got attested the mutation on the basis of will in connivance with the revenue officials. The defendants No. 2 to 4 being the propounders of the will were duty bound to prove the same in accordance with law. They have not produced on record the Will of Smt. Darshani Devi. They also did not call the witnesses of the will to prove the same before the court. They have not proved that the Will was signed by Smt. Darshani and at that relevant time she was in a sound disposing state of mind and was understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions, and had put her signature to the document of her own free will. Thus, the defendants failed to adduce satisfactory and sufficient evidence to prove the requirement of law. Accordingly, this issue is decided in negative."
2(iii) On the basis of findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the above extracted para-77 of the judgment and decree 6 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) dated 12.01.2024 whereby suit instituted by the petitioner was dismissed, petitioner moved an application in the execution petition instituted by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 for enforcement of eviction order dated 17.03.2011. This application was moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) with the prayer that execution petition preferred by respondent No.1 be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous in view of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in para-77 of the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024. Petitioner's contention in the application was that a Will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Darshani Devi in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 (therein) was held as not proved; Such findings of the learned Trial Court as recorded in para-77 of the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 were binding upon the Rent Controller, therefore, execution petition be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner on 19.01.2024 at the stage when arguments in the execution petition & objections had been partly heard by the learned Executing Court on 08.01.2024 and the matter had been kept for 19.01.2024 for further arguments. Upon receipt of the application moved by the petitioner on 19.01.2024, the matter was adjourned by the learned Executing Court to 20.01.2024. On 20.01.2024, keeping in view the nature of 7 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) application, learned Executing Court deemed it appropriate to order that the application as well as main objections moved by the petitioner-a third party would be decided together. The matter was ordered to be listed on 26.02.2024 for arguments on applications & objections filed by all the parties. The order passed by the learned Executing Court on 20.01.2024 is as under:-
"Reply to application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed. Keeping in view the nature of application filed by the applicant/objector Smt. Sushma Aggarwal, I deem it appropriate to decide this application alongwith objections filed by the objector Smt. Sushma Aggarwal, Hence, matter be listed for arguments on objections of all the parties and consideration on application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 26.02.2024. Long date is given due to winter vacation."
2(iv) Petitioner did not assail the above order dated 20.01.2024. As per this order, her application moved under Section 151 CPC as well as her third party objections to the execution petition and the objections preferred by the other parties were to be heard by the learned Executing Court on 26.02.2024. Despite this, petitioner moved yet another application under Section 151 CPC praying that her previous application under Section 151 CPC be decided at the first instance. Gist of the contents of the new application moved on 26.02.2024 was the same as of her previous application filed on 19.01.2024. This new application resulted in two adjournments in the execution petition i.e. on 26.02.2024 and on 8 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) 11.03.2024. On 11.03.2024, learned Executing Court passed an order that the petitioner had previously also filed a similar application on similar grounds, therefore, this application was also required to be decided after hearing the parties on the objections. The matter was accordingly listed for arguments on 18.03.2024. The order passed goes as under:-
"Heard for some time. Vide order dated 20.01.2024, this Court already decided to adjudicate the application alongwith objections filed by the objector. The objector Sushma filed similar application on same ground. Hence, this application shall also be decided after hearing the parties on objections. According, it be listed for arguments on 18.03.2024, as prayed for."
2(v) Apparently, the petitioner did not assail the order dated 11.03.2024, but she next moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC on 11.07.2024. By means of this application, prayer was made for amending her main objections to the execution petition for incorporating findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in para-77 of the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024.
It is worth noticing that the amendment sought to be incorporated in the main objections had already been pleaded by the petitioner in her two applications filed under Section 151 CPC on 19.01.2024 & 26.02.2024. This new application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC also resulted in adjournment of execution petition on 9 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) number of occasions. Finally, the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, was decided and dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 09.09.2024. While dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, learned Executing Court inter-alia observed that petitioner's act and conduct showed that she wanted to delay the execution proceedings; The facts being sought to be incorporated by the petitioner in her objections by amendment, were in her knowledge a long time ago; She had already filed application under Section 151 CPC for dismissing the execution petition on the basis of judgment dated 12.01.2024; The amendment prayed for by the petitioner was not necessary; The application for amendment had been moved with mala-fide intention only to delay the execution proceedings. 2(vi) Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner preferred a petition titled as Sushma Aggarwal Vs. Rajeev Aggarwal & Ors. 2, laying challenge to the order dated 09.09.2024 dismissing her application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The matter came up for hearing before this Court on 04.10.2024. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner, therefore, after making submissions for considerable time, her learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the 2 CMPMO No. 586/2024 decided on 04.10.2024 10 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) aforesaid petition. Permission was granted and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The said order runs as under:-
"After arguing for considerable time, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition. Permission granted. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of."
2(vii) On 16.10.2024, the petitioner instituted the present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India now laying challenge to two orders dated 20.01.2024 and 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Executing Court, whereunder petitioner's two applications almost similar in nature & moved under Section 151 CPC had been ordered to be listed for consideration alongwith main objections filed by her and others for adjudication.
Present petition (CMPMO No. 613/2024) came up for hearing before a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.10.2024, when further proceedings in Execution Petition No. 405-10 of 2022/2011 (Rajeev Aggarwal Vs. Radha Rani) were stayed. Upon receipt of notice of this petition, respondents put in appearance through their respective learned counsel. During course of hearing before the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench on 11.11.2024, learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the Hon'ble bench the institution of CMPMO No. 586/2024 by the petitioner and 11 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) it having been dismissed as withdrawn after arguments vide order dated 04.10.2024. In the above background, present petition has been assigned to this Bench.
3. Submissions 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.01.2024 and 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Executing Court. In terms of order dated 11.03.2024, the second application under Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioner on 26.02.2024 seeking prior adjudication of her first application under Section 151 CPC moved on 19.01.2024, was ordered to be listed for adjudication on 18.03.2024 and was to be "decided after hearing the parties on objections". Learned counsel further contends that in view of nature of submissions made therein, petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC is required to be decided alongwith the objections moved by the parties including the objections filed by petitioner & not afterwards, hence, this petition has been preferred assailing orders dated 20.01.2024 & 11.03.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner would have no grievance in case her application moved under Section 151 CPC is heard by the learned Executing Court alongwith her main objections. 3(ii) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has taken very strong and serious objections to the institution of the present 12 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) petition. Learned counsel submits that the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Petition is a deliberate attempt of the petitioner to do bench hunting. Having failed in her legal pursuit before this Bench in Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case against the Executing Court's order dated 09.09.2024 dismissing petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the petitioner instituted the present petition assailing the two previous orders passed in the Execution Petition on 20.01.2024 and 11.03.2024. That these orders were not only prior in time to the order impugned in Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case, but had also been accepted by the petitioner. In case, petitioner was aggrieved against these two orders, nothing stopped her from laying challenge to the same at the relevant time or even alongwith the order dated 09.09.2024 impugned in Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case. The petitioner's only endeavour is to delay the execution petition that has been going on ever since the year 2011. Petitioner has been able to deprive respondent No.1 of the fruits of his successful legal pursuit by dragging the Execution Petition.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also contended that present petition is a deliberate attempt on part of the petitioner for doing bench hunting. Attention was invited to following para-11 of the present petition, whereunder the petitioner has given 13 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) 'technical error' as the reason for withdrawing Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case:-
"11. That on 11.07.2024, the counsel of the petitioned filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 which was dismissed on 09.09.2024. The order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner in this Hon'ble Court on 04.10.2024, but due to some technical error, the petitioner prefer to withdraw the said petition by seeking permission by the Hon'ble Court. The copy of the order of the Hon'ble Court is annexed as Annexure P-6."
Pointing out to the order passed in Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case, it was submitted that the aforesaid case had been withdrawn not on account of some technical errors as pleaded in the present petition rather the petition had been dismissed after due hearing given to the learned counsel for the petitioner; The Court was not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner that led withdrawal of the petition. No liberty was given to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. After dismissal of Sushma Aggarwal's case2 on 04.10.2024, petitioner filed this petition on 16.10.2024 assailing two orders passed by the learned Executing Court prior in time to the one impugned in Sushma Aggarwal's case; Because of change in roster, the matter was listed before the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench wherein by not describing the correct events in the pleadings that led to withdrawal of her previous petition, petitioner obtained stay on further proceedings of an execution petition that is pending since the year 2011. Learned 14 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) counsel referred to following paras from Kamini Jaiswal Vs. Union of India & Anr,3 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under on forum hunting:-
"27. This Court considered various categories of forum shopping in Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. CIPLA Ltd. & Anr. 4 . Even making allegations of a per se conflict of interest require the matter could be transferred to another Bench, has also been held to be another form of forum hunting. This Court has considered various decisions thus :
146. The learned Solicitor General submitted that Cipla was guilty of forum shopping inasmuch as it had filed petitions in the Bombay High Court, the Karnataka High Court and also an affidavit in the Delhi High Court as a member of the Bulk Drug Manufacturers Association and had eventually approached the Allahabad High Court for relief resulting in the impugned judgment and order dated 3-3-2004 1. It was submitted that since Cipla had approached several constitutional courts for relief, the proceedings initiated in the Allahabad High Court clearly amount to forum shopping.
147. We are not at all in agreement with the learned Solicitor General. Forum shopping takes several hues and shades and Cipla's petitions do not fall under any category of forum shopping.
148. A classic example of forum shopping is when a litigant approaches one Court for relief but does not get the desired relief and then approaches another Court for the same relief. This occurred in Rajiv Bhatia v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi).5 The respondent mother of a young child had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that Court.3
(2018) 1 SCC 156 4 (2017) 5 SCC 262 5 (1999) 8 SCC 525 15 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) She then filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also for a writ of habeas corpus and obtained the necessary relief.
Notwithstanding this, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Delhi High Court for the reason that this Court ascertained the views of the child and found that she did not want to even talk to her adoptive parents and therefore the custody of the child granted by the Delhi High Court to the respondent mother was not interfered with. The decision of this Court is on its own facts, even though it is a classic case of forum shopping.
149. In Arathi Bandi Vs. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao6 this Court noted that jurisdiction in a court is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances. In that case, circumstances were created by one of the parties to the dispute to confer jurisdiction on a particular High Court. This was frowned upon by this Court by observing that to allow the assumption of jurisdiction in created circumstances would only result in encouraging forum shopping.
150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes of forum shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corpn. v. SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd7. wherein it was observed that the respondent/plaintiff had made a deliberate attempt to bring the cause of action, namely, a collision between two vessels on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Bringing one of the vessels to Bombay in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court had the character of forum shopping rather than anything else.
151. Another form of forum shopping is taking advantage of a view held by a particular High Court in contrast to a different view held by another High Court. In Ambica Industries Vs. CCE8 the assessee was from Lucknow. It 6 (2013) 15 SCC 790 7 (1998) 5 SCC 310 8 (2007) 6 SCC 769 16 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT") located in Delhi before the Delhi High Court. Cestat had jurisdiction over the State of Uttar Pradesh, NCT of Delhi and the State of Maharashtra. The Delhi High Court did not entertain the proceedings initiated by the assessee for want of territorial jurisdiction. Dismissing the assessee's appeal this Court gave the example of an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by the Delhi High Court or an assessee affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and consequently evade the law laid down by the Bombay High Court. It was said that this could not be allowed and circumstances such as this would lead to some sort of judicial anarchy.
152. Yet another form of forum shopping was noticed in Jagmohan Bahl v. State (NCT of Delhi)9 wherein it was held that successive bail applications filed by a litigant ought to be heard by the same learned Judge, otherwise an unscrupulous litigant would go on filing bail applications before different Judges until a favourable order is obtained. Unless this practice was nipped in the bud, it would encourage unscrupulous litigants and encourage them to entertain the idea that they can indulge in forum shopping, which has no sanction in law and certainly no sanctity.
153. Another category of forum shopping is approaching different courts for the same relief by making a minor change in the prayer clause of the petition. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha Vs. State of U.P.10 it was noticed by this Court that four writ applications were filed by a litigant and although the prayers were apparently different, the core issue in each petition centred round the 9 (2014) 16 SCC 501 10 (2008) 1 SCC 560 17 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) recovery of the amount advanced by the bank. Similarly, substituting some petitioners for others with a view to confer jurisdiction on a particular court would also amount to forum shopping by that group of petitioners.
154. Finally and more recently, in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (Recusal Matter)11 Khehar, J. noticed yet another form of forum shopping where a litigant makes allegations of a perceived conflict of interest against a Judge requiring the Judge to recuse from the proceedings so that the matter could be transferred to another Judge.
155. The decisions referred to clearly lay down the principle that the Court is required to adopt a functional test vis-à-vis the litigation and the litigant. What has to be seen is whether there is any functional similarity in the proceedings between one court and another or whether there is some sort of subterfuge on the part of a litigant. It is this functional test that will determine whether a litigant is indulging in forum shopping or not."
4. Observations Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that present petition is nothing but sheer abuse of process of the Court:-
4(i) The events of the case described in para-2 make it abundantly clear that the present petition is a repeated endeavour of the petitioner for delaying the execution petition instituted by 11 (2016)5 SCC 808 18 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) respondent No.1 for enforcing the eviction order passed in his favour on 17.03.2011 against respondent No.2.
4(ii) Petitioner is daughter of respondent No.2. It is a matter of record that the present petitioner had filed her third party objections to the execution petition preferred by respondent No.1. Learned Executing Court was in the process of hearing the objections filed in the execution petition including the one preferred by the petitioner. Arguments in the execution petition/objections had been heard partly on 08.01.2024. It is at that stage, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC on 19.01.2024, which was the next date given for continuation of the arguments on the objections preferred by the parties in the execution petition moved by respondent No.1. In this application, petitioner's contention was that on account of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in para-77 (extracted above) of the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 (dismissing the Civil Suit instituted by the petitioner inter-alia against respondents No.1 & 2) concerning the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Darshnai Devi in favour of respondent No.1, the execution petition had been rendered infructuous; therefore, it was incumbent to decide her application at the first instance. Learned Trial Court on 20.01.2024 ordered that the application would be decided alongwith other objections filed by the petitioner and the matter was ordered to be 19 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) listed for 26.02.2024 for arguments on objections of all the parties as well as for consideration of this very application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC.
4(iii) The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the case were that the petitioner would have no objection or grievance, in case, her application under Section 151 CPC is decided alongwith the objections filed by her and the other parties. This is very strange argument on part of the petitioner. Strange being-if this is the stand of the petitioner as now projected, then there is absolutely no cause for her grievance as the order dated 20.01.2024 simply directed listing of application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for decision "alongwith" objections filed by her & other parties to the execution petition. This was also reiterated in the first line of the order dated 11.03.2024 passed in petitioner's second application moved with request to take up her first application prior to the adjudication of her objections. It is quite evident that even in absence of any substantive grievance against any of the orders, the petitioner has been repeatedly moving one application after another on similar ground, but obviously for the only reason i.e. to delay the execution proceedings. In case, petitioner has no grievance in the decision of her application alongwith her main objections, then there was no occasion for her to have instituted second application on 20 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) 26.02.2024 for the same relief that her first application be decided prior to decision of her objections. As if on a merry go round, petitioner succeeded in getting the hearings of the execution petition deferred by many dates by moving the second application. Her second application was ordered to be taken up by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2024 "after hearing the parties on objections". In the given facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the gist and purport of the orders not only dated 20.01.2024 but the order dated 11.03.2024 as well, it is very clear that learned Trial Court has ordered for considering petitioner's both applications alongwith hearing of the main objections. It is for this reason, the petitioner did not assail the orders dated 20.01.2024 & 11.03.2024 at the relevant point of time.
4(iv) Instead of getting decision on her main objection petition and also on her application moved on 19.01.2024 under Section 151 CPC wherein prayer was made for dismissing the execution petition as having been rendered infructuous, the petitioner mover yet another application on 11.07.2024 seeking amendment of her main objections. Her application was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide a detailed reasoned order on 09.09.2024. Petitioner felt aggrieved by this order dismissing her application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, hence, she took legal recourse by instituting Sushma Aggarwal''s2 case. The matter was 21 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) listed before this Court on 04.10.2024. The Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order therein i.e. 09.09.2024. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for considerable time withdrew the petition. No permission was granted to the petitioner to file fresh petition on the same and similar cause of action, yet the petitioner chose to file a second petition i.e. present petition on 16.10.2024, now laying challenge to two previous orders passed by the learned Executing Court on 20.01.2024 & 11.03.2024. The gist of these orders have already been noticed above and the fact that these orders do not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly made the submissions that the petitioner would have no grievance in case her application moved on 19.01.2024 is heard alongwith her objections. But this is exactly the import of impugned orders. The question then arises as to why the petitioner has instituted this petition, if she has no grievance. The only logical reason that can be inferred in the given facts & circumstances of the case is that petitioner's intention is to delay the execution proceedings filed in the year 2011 on one pretext or the other. In furtherance of this intention, she keeps filing one application after another on same, similar or overlapping causes & even against orders which cause her no prejudice. Petitioner herself does not appear to be interested in adjudication of her 22 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) applications/objections or else when the matter came up for hearing before the learned Executing Court she would not have moved another & yet another application.
The only object of the petitioner in instituting this petition that can be deduced is yet another attempt of hers for protracting the proceedings in the execution petition. Litigation cannot be filed merely for the sake of litigating without any just cause or grievance. In the given facts and circumstances, it has to be held that the instant petition is nothing but an outright abuse of the process of the Court. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. UOI & Ors.12, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized for ensuring that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. It is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that dishonesty and attempts to abuse the legal process are effectively curbed. That to curb such attempts, realistic costs should be imposed which the defendant/respondent incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings and even the imposition of punitive cost would be fully justified by the Courts where the legal process has been abused. In Charu Kishor Mehta Versus Prakash Patel & Ors.13, the Hon'ble Apex Court while upholding the order passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs.5 lakhs took into consideration the attempts 12 (2011) 8 SCC 161 13 SLP(C) No.11030/2022 decided on 22.06.2022 23 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) made by the Petitioner in obstructing the execution of recovery certificate under the SARFAESI Act by filing numerous proceedings before the authorities as well as before the Hob'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the Apex Court even took note of numerous SLPs filed before it which were either dismissed or withdrawn and held that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same plea again by filing the another petition and that he had not approached the Court with clean hands, thereby abusing the process of law as well as process of Court. Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated its earlier observations in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others14 and Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India.15 Relevant paras from the judgment reads as under:-
"19. The Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others16 has this to say for methods adopted at the hands of litigants under similar circumstances. Paragraph nos. 1 and 2 as produced below:-
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos 14 (2010) 2 SCC 114 15 (2014) 8 SCC 470 16 (2010) 2 SCC 114 24 ( 2024:HHC:12160 ) and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. 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. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
20. We may record here that we were initially persuaded in this case, to initiate contempt proceedings against the Petitioner, considering that there has been a deliberate attempt on her part in the non-disclosure of absolutely relevant facts before this Court. We are not doing so purely due to the age of the Petitioner as she is a lady of 78 years of age. The present petition is no doubt an abuse of the process of law and has caused harm to the other parties to the litigation, some of whom may have been needlessly drawn into the litigation. We may refer here an observation given in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India17:
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part."17
(2014) 8 SCC 470 25 ( 2024:HHC:12160 )
5. For the foregoing discussions & reasons, the instant petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1 during hearing of the Execution Petition on 29.11.2024, when the matter is stated to be listed before the learned Executing Court/Rent Controller. It is made clear that the objections preferred by the petitioner and the applications moved by her shall be considered only on petitioner's paying the aforesaid costs to respondent No.1 before the learned Executing Court on the next date, failing which, her objections/applications shall not be considered. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 22nd November, 2024 (rohit)