Himachal Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Others on 19 April, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 4240 of 2015 Judgment reserved on: 06.04.2016 Date of Decision : April 19, 2016.
Om Prakash Sharma ...Petitioner
of
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the Petitioner : In person.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan and Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Nemo for respondents No. 3 and 4.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge One of the reasons for overflow of Court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants.
Therefore, one of the greatest challenge before the judiciary today is to curb and tackle the frivolous litigation. The judicial system is being not only choked but flooded with false claims and scarce and valuable time of the Court is being consumed for a wrong cause. Undeniably, false claims are a huge strain on the judicial system.
2. In a recent judgment in Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:08 :::HCHP 2the Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation and .
ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the menace of frivolous litigation in the following terms:
of "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, rt 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 fault on his part. He prays for the litigation, from out of his avings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for, what he has lost, for no fault?....
Xxx xxx xxx
194. Does the concerned litigant realize, that the litigant on the other side has had to defend himself, from Court to Court, and has had to incur expenses towards such defence? And there are some litigants who continue to pursue senseless and ill-considered claims, to somehow or the other, defeat the process of law. ..."
3. This is the third writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner relates to permission to buy land as he is a non-agriculturist and therefore not entitled to purchase land in Himachal Pradesh except with the prior permission of the Government in terms of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. He firstly approached this Court by filing CWP No. 5264 of 2012, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.7.2012 and same reads as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:08 :::HCHP 3"Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to his liberty to file an .
appropriate writ petition. Though, ordinarily such requests are not entertained, since the writ petition was argued for admission on more than three occasions, in view of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, apologetically for the misconceived averments and prayers, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, so also the pending application(s), if any."
of
4. The petitioner thereafter filed CWP No. 5922 of 2012 which was held to be an attempt on the part of the petitioner to abuse rt the process of the Court and the same was consequently dismissed with costs of `50,000/- on 30.8.2012.
5. Notably, the Court while adjudicating upon CWP No. 5922 of 2012 took serious note of the conduct of the petitioner, when he had filed the earlier petition being CWP No. 5264 of 2012 in the following manner:
"2. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 5264 of 2012, in which his grievance was that whereas his case for grant of permission to purchase the land under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972 had not been decided within time, the cases of influential people had been decided within days or months and that the State was not acting in an equitable manner.
3. On 9.7.2012, the matter came up before this very Bench for admission since the Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice was not available. Though, it is not so recorded in the order, but we clearly remember that we had directed that notices be issued only to the official respondents and not to the private respondents At that stage, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the notices be also issued to the private respondents. We had not agreed to this request and directed the matter to be listed before the appropriate Bench. We had passed this order, because on that day, we were hearing the matters which were normally to be listed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice because the Hon'ble Chief Justice was not present in Court on that day.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:08 :::HCHP 4
4. On 10.7.2012 i.e. the next day, the matter came up before a Bench headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, wherein the following .
order was passed: -
" The petitioner prays for detailed arguments tomorrow. Post on 11th July 2010. We make it clear that the contents of the writ petition shall not be published in any print or electronic media without the permission of the Court of (K.J.),CJ (D.C.C.) J"
5.rt It is apparent that the said Bench also felt that this petition was only filed to gain publicity because the Bench directed that the contents of the writ petition shall not be published in any print or electronic media without the permission of the Court. The matter was again taken up on 11.7.2012 when the petitioner appeared in person and submitted that his counsel Shri R.L.Chaudhary may be heard.
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 19.7.2012, on which date the same was disposed of with the following observations:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to his liberty to file an appropriate writ petition. Though, ordinarily such requests are not entertained, since the writ petition was argued for admission on more than three occasions, in view of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, apologetically for the misconceived averments and prayers , the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Emphasis supplied) (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge"
7. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed on 23.7.2012, in which only the State and its functionaries were impleaded as respondents and the persons from whom the petitioner was to purchase the land were impleaded as proforma respondents. None of the persons, impleaded as respondents No. 5 to 9 in the earlier writ petition, were impleaded as parties in the present writ petition.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:08 :::HCHP 58. In para-43 of the petition, the petitioner averred as follows:
"43. That the petitioner has preferred a Civil Writ Petition .
before this Hon'ble Court, which was registered as C.W.P. No. 5264/2012 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh."
The statement made in para-43 may technically be true, but in the affidavit which has been filed in support of the writ petition, it is also stated that material facts have not been concealed. Writ petitions are of decided on the affidavits of the parties and the Court expects that the affidavits are not only true but there is no concealment of facts. It is a well established principle that there should not be any suppression or concealment of the facts. "Supressio veri" and "suggestio falsi"are the rt two grounds on which the writ petitions can be rejected. If the material facts are suppressed or if wrong suggestions are made, the Court has the right to reject the writ petition without even going into the merits of the case. Though, the petitioner may have, as observed above, prayed for and granted the liberty to withdraw the earlier petition with a liberty to file fresh one, he deliberately withheld from this Court the order dated 10.7.2012 which clearly indicated that this Court had grave reservation about the publicity aspect of this petition.
He also withheld relevant portions of the order dated 19.7.2012. In fairness to this Court, the writ petitioner should have brought all these facts to the notice of the Court.
9. The second petition was filed and marked to this Bench. We issued notice to respondents No. 1 to 4 i.e. the official functionaries only. Thereafter, the petitioner had the audacity and temerity to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC bearing No. 2268 of 2012 praying that five persons be impleaded as party respondents in the present petition. These five persons are the same, who were respondents No. 5 to 9 in the earlier writ petition. The explanation given by the petitioner for non-impleadment of these respondents is as follows:
"It is further submitted that while filing the above mentioned writ petition, the above mentioned persons could not be impleaded as respondents inadvertently, but in view of the submissions made hereinabove and in view of the submissions made in the Civil Writ Petition qua the above mentioned persons, it will be in the interest of justice that they may be impleaded as Respondents No. 7 to 11."
10. Keeping in view what we have stated, it is more than obvious that this averment on the face of it is totally false and there was no ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:08 :::HCHP 6 inadvertence in arraying these respondents. It is obvious that the petitioner wants to gain mileage by impleading Smt. Priynaka Vadra .
as party to this petition. As far as her case is concerned, the question relating to grant of permission to her to purchase the land was the subject matter of CWPs No. 138 of 2006 and 139 of 2006, decided by one of us (Rajiv Sharma, J), wherein the permission granted in her favour was upheld. Letters Patent Appeals No. 96 of 2008 and 97 of 2008 filed against the said judgment were dismissed by a Division of Bench of this Court on 9.4.2010. This Court cannot re-open these matters and it is more than obvious that the petitioner is time and again trying to implead Ms. Priyanka Vadra as a party without any other purpose but to gain cheap publicity.
rt
13. We are of the considered view that this petition is only an attempt to abuse the process of the Court. Therefore, the same is dismissed with costs of Rupees 50,000/- The cost shall be paid to the Kasturba Gandhi Bal Ashram, Shimla. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of."
6. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the same was not interfered with and rather the petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.3.2014 by directing the petitioner to produce the required documents by the end of April, 2014 and the State authorities were directed to consider the same in accordance with the Rules and Policies in force and pass fresh orders within two months of the receipt of the documents.
7. It is apt to reproduce paras 3 to 7 of the order, which reads thus:
"3. The grievance of the appellant is that he had applied for permission way back in February, 2007 under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, for purchasing a land in the State of Himachal Pradesh as per the policy of the State ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 7 but he has not been granted such permission while others had been granted such permission who had applied later than him.
.
4. The State Government has filed a reply before us stating therein that the appellant was requested by letters dated 9th July, 2007, 10th December, 2007, 13th August, 2008, 7th August, 2009, 13th August, 2009, 9th December, 2009, 30th December, 2009 and 19th of May, 2010 and 13th September, 2010 to furnish papers as required under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 but the appellant did not furnish the papers as required and in rt the circumstances, the State Government had no option but to ultimately reject the application of the appellant in the year 2012.
5. The appellant who has personally appeared before this Court submitted that given a chance he will furnish the documents required by the State Government by the end of April, 2014.
6. We, therefore, direct that if the appellant furnishes the required documents by the end of April, 2014, the authorities of the State Government will consider the application of the appellant in accordance with the Rules and Policies in force and pass fresh orders within two months of the receipt of the documents.
7. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms."
8. The petitioner has now by way of this writ petition assailed the letter dated 16.1.2015 issued by respondent No.2 whereby he has been called upon to submit afresh the following documents:
(i) NOC of co-sharers of the land afresh;
(ii) Latest copy of jamabandi and tatima from the Patwari afresh and;
(iii) 30 years Bonafide Resident Certificate in Himachal Pradesh.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 8
Instead of furnishing reply and submitting the aforesaid documents, .
the petitioner once again approached this Court for quashing the aforesaid letter and has averred that the Deputy Commissioner has not only given a false affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the non-submission of the documents, but is further guilty of having of committed contempt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court because as against the two months granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent rt No.2 even after having received the letter addressed by the petitioner on 25.4.2014 replied to the same after more than a month.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the petitioner has sought the following substantive reliefs:
"(i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside order dated 16.01.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan.
(ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner and proforma respondents within time bound period for purchasing land in Himachal Pradesh under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act since the petitioner has applied for the same on 09.03.2007, but till date, without any justification the said permission has not been granted, whereas the respondents have granted the said permission to other people within 4 days and 14 days."
10. In response to the petition, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed reply wherein preliminary submissions have been raised to the effect that the claim of the petitioner is baseless as he failed to comply with the codal formalities with respect to his application seeking permission to purchase the land, which till date, have not been furnished. It is further averred that the petitioner was asked to submit ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 9 some documents as per amended Rules and Policies in force vide their .
letter dated 27.5.2014 and in the meanwhile, a clarification was also sought by the respondent from the Government in respect of the petitioner's case to the extent as to whether his case would be governed by old or amended rules.
of
11. The Principal Secretary (Revenue) issued clarification that the case of the petitioner would be governed by the amended rt provisions and he was accordingly directed to submit the aforesaid documents for ensuring compliance of sub-rule 38-A of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, as amended in the year 2011.
Thereafter, reminders were also issued to the petitioner on 10.10.2014 and 28.11.2014 (Annexures R-5 and R-6) but he failed to produce the requisite documents.
12. Insofar as non-compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court within the stipulated period is concerned, the respondents have categorically stated that it was on account of the failure of the petitioner to submit the documents as per the amended Rules that the matter has been delayed. It has further been averred that the petitioner is habitual of making unnecessary correspondence with the respondent and has repeatedly indulged himself in filing number of RTI applications which amounts to wastage of financial and manual resources of the State.
13. It is thereafter specifically averred that the petitioner had applied for grant of permission to purchase the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 30/44 Khasra No. 106/999/2/1 measuring 0-11 biswas which was a joint ownership, whereas the petitioner intends to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 10 purchase the land by carving out a tatima qua separate khasra number .
but the co-owners have not given No Objection Certificate to sell the land in shares. Therefore, in absence of these documents, no permission can be granted and the petitioner was once again intimated to supply the documents along with his application, but he failed to of meet the requisite codal formalities.
We have heard the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Verma, learned rt Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2 and gone through the records of the case carefully.
14. It is rather intriguing to note that a person of nearly 85 years of age is filing such cantankerous litigation one after the other and instead of replying to the queries as raised by respondent No.2 in discharge of his official business, would approach this Court at the drop of the hat.
15. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 16.1.2015, the operative portion whereof reads as under:
".... The applicant filed a CWP No. 5922/2012 titled as Om Parkash vs. State of H.P. in the Hon'ble High Court of H.P., which was dismissed with the cost vide order dated 30.8.2012. The applicant filed a civil appeal No. 4246-4247 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (c ) NO.
14901-14902 of 2013 before the Supreme Court of India which was decided vide order dated 14.3.2014 with the direction to the undersigned that if the applicant will file the required documents before the authorities, the State Government will consider the application of the appellant in accordance with the rules and policies in force. This office vide letter No. PSH/11-4901/07-KGT-1448 dated 27.5.2014 intimated the applicant to submit the required documents.
The applicant was again reminded vide letter No. PSH/11-4901/07- ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 11 KGT dated 29.8.2014 and again vide letter No. PSH/11-4901/07- KGT-3012 dated 10.10.2014. The applicants neither submitted the .
NOC of all the co-sharers of the land nor resident certificate of 30 years in H.P. as required under amended rules notified on 29.7.2011.
The Government has again directed to the applicant vide its letter No. B.F(10)-269/2011 dated 19.07.2014 to file his application as per of amended rule. Therefore, the application of the applicant is rejected due to non-compliance of the required formalities."
16. rt It was for the petitioner to have attended to the queries as raised by respondent No.2, but instead of doing so the petitioner has once again indulged in leveling all sorts of allegations against the respondent No.2 by stating that he does not have courage to even ask the VVIPs and higher-ups to meet with the requirement as sought from the petitioner vide impugned letter.
17. It is rather shocking that the petitioner despite having been reprimanded by this Court in the first case has not learnt any lesson.
Even at that stage this Court was constrained to observe that it was only in view of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, apologetically for the misconceived averments and prayers that the writ petition is dismissed.
18. Thereafter again, this Court made serious observations against the petitioner's conduct and dismissed the petition being CWP No. 5922 of 2012 with costs of `50,000/-. Yet, un-deterred the petitioner has approached this Court, that too, against the contents of a letter which only call upon him to furnish certain documents. But the inflated ego of the petitioner probably drives him to file the instant litigation. In such scenario, it is the bounden duty of the Court to curb ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 12 such kind of litigation. Such like petitions cannot be encouraged since .
the judicial system in the country is already choked and such litigants are only consuming Courts time for a wrong cause.
19. It has to be remembered that the Court proceedings are sacrosanct and cannot therefore be permitted to be polluted. Judicial of system cannot be allowed to be abused and brought to its knees by unscrupulous litigants.
20. rt This aspect of the matter has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K.Modi vrs. K.N.Modi and others, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573 has dealt in detail with the proposition as to what would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court, one of which pertains to re-litigation. It has been held at paragraphs 43 to 46 as follows:
43. The Supreme Court Practice 1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell in paragraph 18/19/33 (page 344) explains the phrase "abuse of the process of the Court" thus: "This terms connotes that the process of the Court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The Court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation. . . . . . . .
The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material."
44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of Court is re-litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 13Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of Court especially where the proceedings are absolutely .
groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of Courts' discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special of cases. The Court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding.
45. In the case of Greenhalgh v. Mallard (1947) 2 All ER 255, the Court had to consider different proceedings on the same cause of rt action for conspiracy, but supported by different averments. The Court held that if the plaintiff has chosen to put his case in one way, he cannot thereafter bring the same transaction before the Court, put his case in another way and say that he is relying on a new cause of action. In such circumstances he can be met with the plea of res judicata or the statement or plaint may be struck out on the ground that the action is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court.
46. In Mcllkenny v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Force (1980) 2 All ER 227, the Court of Appeal in England struck out the pleading on the ground that the action was an abuse of the process of the Court since it raised an issue identical to that which had been finally determined at the plaintiffs ' earlier criminal trial. The Court said even when it is not possible to strike out the plaint on the ground of issue estoppel, the action can be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court because it is an abuse for a party to re- litigate a question or issue which has already been decided against him even though the other party cannot satisfy the strict rule of res judicata or the requirement of issue estoppels.
21. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2013(2) SCC 398, has dealt in detail with "abuse of process of Court" in the following terms:
Abuse of the process of Court :::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 14
"31. Now, we shall deal with the question whether both or any of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and 125/2011 are .
guilty of suppression of material facts, not approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the Court. Before we dwell upon the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, let us refer to some case laws which would help us in dealing with the present situation with greater precision.
of
32. The cases of abuse of the process of court and such allied matters have been arising before the Courts consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the rt obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:
32.1. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with 'unclean hands'. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief.
32.2. The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
32.3. The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.
32.4. Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains. 32.5. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands isnot entitled to any relief, interim or final.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 15
32.6. The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified .
even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs. 32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
of 32.8. The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa".
Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed rt grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it. [Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402].
33. Access jurisprudence requires Courts to deal with the legitimate litigation whatever be its form but decline to exercise jurisdiction, if such litigation is an abuse of the process of the Court. In P.S.R.Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141, the Court held:
"15. The crucial significance of access jurisprudence has been best expressed by Cappelletti:
"The right of effective access to justice has emerged with the new social rights. Indeed, it is of paramount importance among these new rights since, clearly, the enjoyment of traditional as well as new social rights presupposes mechanisms for their effective protection. Such protection, moreover, is best assured be a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system. Effective access to justice can thus be seen as the most basic requirement the most basic 'human-right' of a system which purports to guarantee legal rights."
.....................................
12. The further question which now arises is as to how to curb this tendency of abuse of process of court. As suggested in Kishore Samrita (supra), one of the ways to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 16 inRamrameshwari Devi and others Vs. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 249 took judicial notice of the fact .
that the courts are flooded with these kinds of cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrongdoers and stressed for imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and it was held:-
"52. 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 of 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 rt litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial Judge to carefully scrutinize, 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 of 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. 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 parte 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 parte 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.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 17
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 with 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 of merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.
J.rt 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 form 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 hearing fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed."
22. Adverting once again to the facts of the case, we are at a complete lose to understand as to how the letter dated 16.1.2015 which only calls upon the petitioner to submit certain documents can furnish a cause of action for filing the present writ petition. After all, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the requirement of law and not bulldoze to this Court. The Court cannot encourage this kind of adventurous litigation which has to be curbed with the heavy hand.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and are rather of the firm view that the same is absolutely frivolous and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs. We might have though taken into consideration the advanced age of the petitioner and also the fact that he had appeared in person, but then bearing in mind the fact that the petitioner has not learnt any lesson ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP 18 from the result of the previous two writ petitions and has again indulged .
in an otherwise avoidable litigation, the petitioner cannot go scot-free.
24. This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of `50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority (for short 'Authority') within a period of three months. On of failure to do so, the Authority shall be competent to execute this judgment through the process of the Court.
25. rt Similarly, in case the petitioner has not already paid the costs as imposed earlier by this Court on 30.8.2012 in CWP No. 5922 of 2012, the same shall also be recovered by the Director, H.P. Social Justice and Empowerment Department in the same manner as aforesaid.
26. Since the petitioner has appeared in person, let a copy of this judgment be sent to him free of costs at his last known address.
Copy of this judgment be also sent to the Authority and Director, H.P. Social Justice and Empowerment Department for doing the needful in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
( Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
Chief Justice
April 19, 2016 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(GR) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:08:09 :::HCHP