Delhi District Court
Purnima vs Sub Registrar on 3 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. SAHIL KHURMI
CNR No:-DLCT030005152024
CS SCJ No.159/2024
Mrs. Purnima
W/o Sh. Narender Kumar Verma,
R/o H. No.1, First Floor,
A-2 Block, Holi Chowk,
West Sant Nagar,
Burari,
Delhi-110084.
(Mob 9873092426) ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sub-Registrar
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Old Court Building,
Kashmere Gate,
Near Ritz Cinema,
Delhi-110006.
2. District Magistrate
Central District
14, Darya Ganj,
Delhi-110002. ...Defendants
Date of institution of suit 23.01.2024
Date on which reserved for judgment 25.07.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment 03.08.2024
Decision: Dismissed with cost
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.159/2024
Sahil by Sahil Khurmi
Date: Page No.1 of 18
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:24:39 +0530
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts as per the plaint
are that plaintiff had inherited a property bearing No.137/8 &
137/9/4 of Village Burari, Delhi now known as A-2 Block, West
Sant Nagar, Delhi-110084 ad measuring 49 sq. feet ( hereinafter
referred to as the suit property) on 29.11.2004 in a mutual
understanding and the owner namely Sh. Kailash Mohan Rustagi
has given all the rights related to the suit property to the plaintiff by
way of General Power of Attorney (GPA) and a Will.
1.1 It is stated that GPA was executed and presented for
registration by the plaintiff and the executant namely Sh. Kailash
Mohan Rustagi in the office of the defendant No.1, where both the
parties appeared. It is further stated that after completion of all the
formalities and documents, the defendant No.1 issued a receipt
bearing number 082 mention S. No.16241 dated 29.11.2004 for the
collection of the documents i.e. Will and General Power of
Attorney (GPA). It is further stated that despite several visits and
requests of the plaintiff to the defendant No.1, the said documents
were not returned.
1.2 It is pertinent to mention that in the year 2012, the officials
of the defendant No.1 asked the plaintiff to apply certified copy but
no details were provided to her and thereafter she through her
husband filed a RTI to the office of the defendant No.1 to know the
status of the registration of the documents but there was no
satisfactory answer given to her by the defendant No.1. the true
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi
Date: Page No.2 of 18
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:24:50 +0530
copies of the RTI and reply sent by the defendant No.1 are
Annexure P-4 (colly).
1.3 That due to the increasing age and various health issues, the
plaintiff was unable to communicate any written communication
with the office of the defendant No.1 but on 05.07.2022, the
plaintiff and her husband also went to the office of defendant No.1
to inspect her file but the officials of the defendant No.1 refused to
cooperate and also never shown the file to her. The receipt of the
fees paid for the file inspection to the defendant No.1 is Annexure
P-5.
1.4 That on 01.09.2023, the plaintiff through her counsel again
approached the office of the defendant No.1 and filed a RTI related
to the status of the registration of the GPA and Will in her favour on
29.11.2004 and the defendant No.1 replied to the said RTI on
11.09.2023 that the information cannot be provided to the plaintiff.
The copy of RTI dated 01.09.2023 and reply to the RTI dated
11.09.2023 are Annexure P-6.
1.5 That despite service of legal notices and the reminders at the
defendant's offices, there was no update of the registration of the
documents nor have they responded to the legal notice and
reminder which clearly brings out the malafide and fraudulent
intentions of the defendants who pretended themselves to be
offices for the public services and convenience. Hence, the present
suit for recovery has been filed seeking relief of mandatory
injunction thereby directing the defendant No.1 and 2 to hand over
the registered documents to the plaintiff for the suit property
bearing No.137/8 & 137/9/4 of Village Burari, Delhi now Known
as A-2 Block, West Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi-110084 ad
measuring 49 sq feet.
Digitally signed
Sahil by Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Khurmi 2024.08.03
CS SCJ No.159/2024 16:24:58 +0530 Page No.3 of 18
1.6 It is pertinent to mention that prayer clause (2) of the plaint
for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from
further registration of any document related to the suit property
was disposed off as withdrawn vide separate statement of Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff dated 29.01.2024.
2. Summons of the suit have been served on the defendants
No.1 on 08.02.2024 and on defendant No.2 on 09.02.2024.
However, despite service of summons, neither the WS has been
filed on behalf of aforesaid defendants nor the defendants have
appeared before this Court. Accordingly, vide order dated
26.03.2024, their right to file written statement was closed and
both the defendants No.1 and 2 were proceeded exparte.
EX-PARTE EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/1 Copy of my Aadhar Card. (OSR)
Ex.PW1/2 Rough Site plan.
Ex.PW1/3 Copy of receipt dated 29.11.2004. (OSR)
Mark X Copies of RTI and the reply sent by the
defendant No.1.
Ex.PW1/5 Photoopy of receipt dated 05.07.2022 of fees
paid for the file inspection to the defendant
No.1.(OSR)
Mark A and B Copy of RTI dated 01.09.2023, copy of reply
dated 11.09.2023.
Ex.PW1/7(colly) Office copy of legal notice dated 18.10.2023
along with original postal receipt.
Digitally
signed by
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Sahil Sahil Khurmi Page No.4 of 18
Date:
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:25:10
+0530
Ex.PW1/8(colly) Office copy of reminder dated 02.12.2023
along with original postal receipt.
2.1 Thereafter exparte evidence was closed on separate
statement of plaintiff recorded to this effect.
3. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the
record of the case meticulously.
DISCUSSION OF APPLICABLE LAW
4. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 governs the law
of mandatory injunction. In order to prevent the breach of an
obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain
acts which the Court is capable of enforcing. In such case the Court
may in its discretion, grant mandatory injunction (i) to prevent
such breach obligation and also (ii) to compel the performance of
the requisite acts.
5. It is settled position of law that case of plaintiff has to stand
on its own legs. Even in the cases where the defendant is
proceeded against ex parte, the plaintiff still has to prove his case
by leading necessary and cogent evidence, as required.
6. In the case where defendant is proceeded against ex parte, it
does not mean that the defendant admits the assertions made
against him by the plaintiff in the plaint. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbax
Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, it was observed that:-
"The initial burden of proof would be upon the
plaintiff in view of section 101 of the Evidence Act
..... In terms of the said provision the burden of
proving the fact rests on the party who substantially
asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who
Digitally
signed by
Sahil Sahil Khurmi
Date:
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Page No.5 of 18
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:25:29
+0530
denies it..... In terms of section 102 of the Evidence
Act, the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if
he discharges that onus and makes out a case which
entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the
defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which
would dis-entitle the plaintiff to the same".
7. In Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya V/s Anil Pajwani, AIR 2003
SC 2508, while considering the provisions of Order IX, Rule 6 and
Order VIII, Rule 10 of the CPC, it was observed that even if the
suit proceeds ex-parte under Order IX, Rule 6 of the CPC, the
necessity of proof by the plaintiff of its case cannot be dispensed
with.
8. In Maya Devi V/s Lalta Prasad,(2015) 5 SCC 588, it was
held that,
"The failure to file a Written Statement, thereby
bringing Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC into operation,
or the factum of Defendant having been set ex parte,
does not invite a punishment in the form of an
automatic decree. Both under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
and on the invocation of Order IX of the CPC, the
Court is nevertheless duty- bound to diligently ensure
that the plaint stands proved and the prayers therein are
worthy of being granted."
9. In the matter of Meenakshisundaram Textiles V/s
Valliammal Textiles, 2011 (3) CTC 168, it was held that, even an
ex-parte judgment should contain reasons. It was held that:-
"The Civil Procedure Code does not say that the Court
is bound to grant a decree in case the defendant is
absent." It is further held, "In view of the above, in the
event the defendant is set ex parte, the Court should be
extra careful in such case and it should consider the
pleadings and evidence and arrive at a finding as to
whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree."
Digitally
signed by
Sahil Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:25:37
CS SCJ No.159/2024 +0530 Page No.6 of 18
LAW OF LIMITATION
10. Under Article 113 of The limitation Act, any suit for which
no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule the
limitation period is Three years from the date on which the right to
sue accrues. As per the said Article, the suit for mandatory
injunction has to be filed within three years from the date on which
the right to sue accrued.
11. The words "right to sue" ordinarily mean the right to seek
relief by means of legal proceedings. Generally, the right to sue
accrues only when the cause of action arises, that is, the right to
prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit must be
instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or when
there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the
defendant against whom the suit is instituted (See: Mt. Bole v. Mt.
Koklam, AIR 1930 Privy Council 270 and Gannon Dunkerley and
Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1433.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
12. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, It is pertinent
to mention that the alleged GPA was executed on 29.11.2004 and
plaintiff allegedly visited the office of defendant's on the same
date whereby alleged receipt Ex.PW1/3 was issued by the
defendants. The present suit has been filed on 23.01.2024. Period
for filing of suit for mandatory injunction as per Article 113 of
Limitation Act is three years from the date of cause of action. In the
present case, the cause of action accrued in the year 2004 when the
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Page No.7 of 18
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:25:44 +0530
registered documents GPA and Will were not returned back to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has woken up from her slumber in knocking
the doors of the Court after delay/laches of 20years.
DOCTRINE OF LACHES/DELAY
13. It is a settled law that law assists those who are vigilant and
not who sleep over their rights. The same is enshrined in the
fundamental Maxim of "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura
subveniunt" which means that the law assists those who are
vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights, is a fundamental
legal maxim on which statutes of limitations are premised.
14. In Bichitrananda Behera vs State of Orrisa and Ors.2023
LiveLaw (SC) 883 the concept of "Laches" was explained by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, whereby it was held that:
21. The word "laches" is derived from the French
language meaning "remissness and slackness". It
thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in
pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while
causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on
the part of a party to do an act which law requires
while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in
the way of the party getting relief or remedy.
22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of
the delay and the nature of acts done during the
interval. As stated, it would also involve
acquiescence on the part of the party approaching
the court apart from the change in position in the
interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for
a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who
knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a
waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the
other party in a particular position, and therefore, it
would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge
before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his
conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to
avail a remedy.
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Page No.8 of 18
Date:
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:25:52 +0530
(emphasis supplied)
15. In Mrinmoy Maity vs Chhanda Koley and Ors 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 318, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that
delay defeats justice. It was observed that:
9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on
perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we
are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought
to have been non- suited or in other words writ
petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches itself. An applicant who
approaches the court belatedly or in other words
sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of
time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to
be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ
courts. This Court time and again has held that delay
defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors
which should be born in mind by the High Court
while exercising discretionary powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the
High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary
powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert
his right has allowed the cause of action to drift
away and attempts are made subsequently to
rekindle the lapsed cause of action.
(emphasis supplied)
BAR OF SECTION 41(g) of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT
16. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 41(g) of Specific
Relief Act, 1963 provides that injunction cannot be granted to
prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced.
In the present case since the plaintiff has knocked the doors of the
Court after an inordinate delay of 20 years in filing the present suit,
therefore, it transpires that the plaintiff has acquiesced in the
alleged continuing breach by defendant No.1 and hence the relief
claimed by plaintiff is specifically barred under Section 41(g) of
Specific Relief Act, 1963. Digitally signed
Sahil by Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:26:02 +0530
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Page No.9 of 18
17. It is also pertinent to mention that the entire case of the
plaintiff rests on the receipt Ex.PW1/3. Apart from that, no other
document has been filed on record by the plaintiff including copy
of GPA and Will to substantiate that the said documents were duly
executed between the parties. In the said receipt Ex.PW1/3, no
details of the alleged documents is mentioned. Even the name of
the plaintiff is also not mentioned in the said receipt. Only the
name of one "Kailash" is mentioned without any further
particulars or details of him. The plaintiff has not even
summoned/examined the said executant Sh. Kailash Kumar
Rustagi who allegedly executed the GPA and Will in favour of the
plaintiff. Even the rough site plan filed Ex. PW-1/2 is a blank sheet
of paper without mentioning the details of the suit property or
neighboring property.
18. It is pertinent to note that Sub Registrar-1, Kashmere Gate
duly replied vide reply dated 26.10.2012 to the letter dated
11.10.2012 of the plaintiff, in which it was stated that, " it is to
inform you that office does not preserve the original copy of the
deed more than 2 years".
19. It is further imperative to note that the plaintiff has filed RTI
dated 16.11.2012 with the defendant in which information
regarding a specific question was asked i.e., "1) How long the
original documents of GPA, Deed etc are kept/preserved in the
office of Sub-Registrar, old court building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
if the same are not received by the second party". The same was
duly replied by the Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate vide reply dated
31.12.2012 in which the answer was given as "Two Years".
Digitally
signed by Sahil
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Sahil Khurmi Page No.10 of 18
Date:
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:26:44
+0530
20. Therefore, since the documents with Defendant no.1/Sub-
registrar are preserved for two years as per reply to RTI filed by the
defendant no.1, no fruitful purpose shall be served by directing the
defendant no.1 to return the said documents, if any, after lapse of
so many years. Further, it is flabbergasting to note that despite
receiving repeated replies by defendant no.1 to the RTIs of the
plaintiff in 2012, that the documents are preserved for 2 years, the
plaintiff filed the present suit after inordinate delay of several
years.
CONCLUSION
21. Thus, in view of the above discussion and settled law, this
Court is of the considered view that no prima facie case exists in
favour of the plaintiff for grant of mandatory injunction, as prayed
for. Therefore there is no need to deal with the other two
ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss or
injury. The case of the plaintiff does not stand on its own legs and
the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION AND IMPOSING REALISTIC
COSTS
22. Before parting, I would be failing in my duty without
discussing the settled law on filing of frivolous litigation and
imposition of realistic costs.
Digitally signed
Sahil by Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:26:52 +0530
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Page No.11 of 18
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
23. Lamenting that the Indian judicial system is grossly
afflicted with frivolous litigation and abuse of process of law,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India affirmed Cost Of Rs 5 Lakhs
imposed on Litigant in case titled as Charu Kishor Mehta vs
Prakash Patel & Ors Special Leave Petition No.. 11030 /2022
decided on 22.06.2022.
HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT
24. In Kusum Kumria and Ors. vs Pharma Venture India Pvt.
Ltd RFA(OS) 124/2014 decided on 20.10.2015 by Hon'ble Delhi
High Court, it was held that realistic costs should be imposed to
discourage frivolous litigations. It was observed as follows:
Abuse of Judicial Process
241. It is also necessary to advert to the power of the
court under Section 151 of the CPC. This statutory
provision specifically states that ―Nothing in this
Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the
inherent power of the court to make such orders as
may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the court‖. The spirit, object
and intendment of the statutory provisions, as well
as statutory scheme shows, that the inherent powers
of the court are complementary to the powers
specifically conferred on the court by the Code, and
are in addition thereto. While Section 35A is
confined to award of compensatory costs in respect
of ―false or vexatious claims or defences, Section
151 takes within its ambit a much wider area of
litigation which tantamounts to abuse of process of
court. Section 151 therefore, enables a court to pass
orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, or
to ―prevent abuse of process of the court which is
beyond the "false and vexatious" litigation covered
under Section 35A and are wide enough to enable
the court to pass orders for full restitution. It is trite
that an order imposing reasonable and realistic costs
is necessary to do the right and undo the wrong by an
Sahil Digitally signed by
Sahil Khurmi
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Khurmi Date: 2024.08.03
16:27:41 +0530
Page No.12 of 18
unscrupulous litigant in the course of administration
of justice.
(emphasis laid)
DELHI DISTRICT COURT
25. In Devi Prasanna Nayak vs Deepak Malviya Revision
Petition No.. 527 of 2018, CNR No. DLSE01-005961-2018
decided by court of Sh. Anuj Agrawal, Additional Sessions Judge-
05, South East District, Saket courts, New delhi, it was held that:
12. Before parting, I may hasten to add that liberal
access to justice should not be construed by anyone
as a means to lead chaos and indiscipline and
frivolous petitions should be penalized with heavy
cost. The sanctity of the judicial process will be
seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with
firmly. A litigant who takes liberty with court
procedure should anticipate the necessary
consequences.
13. In my view, a stern message is required to be sent
to the litigants who indulge in frivolous and
vexatious litigation as such litigation not only clogs
arteries of justice delivery system but also deprives
genuine litigants of their fundamental right of speedy
trial. Therefore, it is bounden duty of the court to
ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those
who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay
justice. It is only then the courts would be in a
position to resolve genuine causes in a time bound
manner and answer the concerns of those who are in
need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also
necessary to ensure that access to courts is available
to citizens with genuine grievances and not to the
frivolous petitions like the present one.
14. The issue that in appropriate cases, costs can also
be imposed while dismissing revision petition is no
longer res integra. Reliance can be placed upon
judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court in the
matter of Vijay Ghai v. State Crl. M. C. No.
3669/2011 decided on 01.11.2013 and M/s Miracle
Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. v. State, Crl. M. C. No. 4529/2013
decided on 07.11.2013. To illustrate, observations of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of
Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi v. NCT of Delhi & Anr, Crl.
Digitally signed
Sahil by Sahil Khurmi
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Khurmi Date: 2024.08.03
16:27:54 +0530 Page No.13 of 18
M.C No. 4504/2013 and Crl. M. A No. 16125/2013
decided on 27.11.2013 while imposing costs in a
criminal revision can be reproduced here as under:
"...22. Imposition of Costs-
22.1 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. The cost should be equal to the benefits
derived by the litigants, and the harm and deprivation
suffered by the rightful person so as to check the
frivolous litigations and prevent the people from
reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through Court.
The costs imposed by the Courts must be the real
costs equal to the deprivation suffered by the rightful
person and also considering how long they have
compelled the other side to contest and defend the
litigation in various courts. In appropriate cases, the
Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise
it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity
of judicial proceedings. The parties raise fanciful
claims and contests because the Courts are reluctant
to order prosecution. The relevant judgments in
support of this preposition are as under:-
"22.2 In Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi,
(2011) 8 SCC 249, the Supreme Court has held that
the Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic
realities and have to be realistic in imposing the
costs. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment
are reproduced hereunder:-
"52...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...
***
54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic 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 other miscellaneous expenses which Sahil Digitally signed by Sahil Khurmi Khurmi Date: 2024.08.03 16:28:02 +0530 CS SCJ No.159/2024 Page No.14 of 18 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.
56. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation."
22.3 In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Supreme Court held that heavy costs and prosecution should be ordered in cases of false claims and defences as under:-
"82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases 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 Digitally signed CS SCJ No.159/2024 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date: Page No.15 of 18 Khurmi 2024.08.03 16:28:13 +0530 maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."
(Emphasis supplied)"
22.4 In Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411, this Court imposed costs of Rs.15.1 lakhs and noted as under:
"6. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the Courts. One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person. ***
9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for over-flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of CS SCJ No.159/2024 Digitally signed Page No.16 of 18 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.08.03 16:28:20 +0530 all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts..."
(Emphasis supplied)"
26. Thus, time and again it has been held by Superior Courts that realistic costs should be imposed for frivolous litigation and such litigation not only clogs arteries of justice delivery system but also deprives genuine litigants of their fundamental right of speedy trial. It is only then the courts would be in a position to resolve genuine causes in a time bound manner and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances and not to the frivolous petitions like the present one.
27. Adverting back to the present case, the plaintiff had allegedly got executed documents i.e., GPA and Will in her favor from executant namely Sh. Kailash Mohan Rustagi pertaining to the suit property in 2004. It is her case that she went to office of defendant no.1 to register the same but the said documents were not returned to the plaintiff, till date. Hence, the present suit is filed in 2024 after awakening from deep slumber by the plaintiff, with prayer to direct the defendant no.1 to return the said documents. The plaintiff has not even bothered to summon/examine the alleged executant Sh. Kailash Mohan Rustagi who alleged executed such documents in her favor in 2004, in order to prove her case. The plaintiff has not even filed a copy of such documents on record, in order to prima facie convince the Court, that such Digitally signed CS SCJ No.159/2024 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:Page No.17 of 18
Khurmi 2024.08.03 16:28:29 +0530 documents existed or very duly executed. A rough site plan has been filed of the suit property which is a blank sheet of paper, without mentioning the description of the suit property or the neighboring property. The entire case of the plaintiff rests upon one receipt Ex. PW-1/3, which doesn't even mention the name of the plaintiff or even the full name and other details/particulars of the alleged executant namely Sh. Kailash Mohan Rustagi is not there. Even the details of the documents allegedly submitted by plaintiff with the defendant no.1 is not mentioned in the said receipt.
28. Ergo, in view of settled law, as discussed above, the present suit is dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited by the plaintiff with Bar Council of Delhi, Indigent & Disabled Lawyers, Account No.010104000183451, IFSC Code: IBKL0000010, IDBI Bank - Sirifort Branch, New Delhi.
29. Copy of this judgment be sent to Honorary Secretary, Delhi Bar Association for necessary information and recovery of cost from the plaintiff, as per law.
30. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
31. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by Sahil
Announced in the open Sahil Khurmi
Date:
court today on 03.08.2024 Khurmi 2024.08.03
16:28:38
+0530
(SAHIL KHURMI)
Civil Judge-1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ No.159/2024 Page No.18 of 18