Delhi District Court
Smt. Dilip Kaur vs Smt. Kaushlaya Devi on 25 October, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT AGGARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE, DELHI
(WEST)02
SUIT NO.7597/16
Smt. Dilip Kaur
W/o Sh. Nishan Singh
R/o J375, Sector16,
Rohini, Delhi110085
..........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Smt. Kaushlaya Devi
W/o Sh. Hargun Singh
R/o J378, Sector16,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085
2. Sh. Gopal Singh
S/o Sh. Makhan Singh
R/o J358, Sector16,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085
3. The Addl. Commissioner
Slum & J.J., MCD, Vikas Kutir, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, General Wing
Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi 11006
.....................DEFENDANTS
Suit filed on - 21/10/2000
Judgment Reserved on - 14/10/2019
Date of decision - 25/10/2019
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Suit No.7597/16 Page1/18
2
JUDGMENT: By this judgment, I shall adjudicate a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is necessary to state the pleadings in the present suit concisely.
Pleadings of the plaintiff :
1. This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. It is prayed that the defendant no.3 & 4/MCD be directed to demolish the illegal construction raised by the defendant no.1 & 2 and it is further prayed that defendant no.1 & 2 be restrained from raising any unauthorised construction or any illegal construction and they be directed to close the unauthorised encroachment and that the staircase raised by defendant no.1 be directed to be demolished.
As stated in the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is residing at J375, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi - 110085 and as she is a victim of 1984 riots, she was allotted the said plot by DDA on compensatory ground. It is stated that the defendant no.1 & 2 are living in the adjoining house bearing No.J 378396 and J358, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi110085. It is further submitted that defendant no.3 & 4 are having the powers to remove the illegal encroachment in the aforesaid area.
It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 has illegally opened a large window in his wall towards the plaintiff's side and is attempting to open the gate for incoming and outgoing of his house which as per the plaintiff is illegal and unauthorised construction. It is further stated that defendant no.1 & 2 have illegally constructed and encroached one room on the main road and that the defendant no.1 has also constructed the stairs on the main road.
Suit No.7597/16 Page2/18
3
It is further stated that despite lodging several complaints, no action was taken by defendant no.3 & 4 against defendant no.1 & 2. That the defendant no.1 has been throwing dust and waste material towards the house of the plaintiff and is causing nuisance which in turn is causing torture and mental agony to the plaintiff. That defendant no.1 & 2 have no right to raise any unauthorised construction towards the side of the plaintiff and on the main road, in respect of which several complaints were made by the plaintiff in the police chowki and with the defendant no.3 & 4, but no action has been taken.
That on 19/10/2000, defendant no.1 & 2 collected building material to raise unauthorised construction including by opening main gate by the defendant no.2 and they gave directions to all the masons and labourers to raise unauthorised construction. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
Pleadings of the Defendants :
2. The written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 wherein inter alia, it was submitted that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and that the suit has also been filed for the propose of harassing the defendant no.1 and plaintiff has herself grabbed the portion of the gali. It was submitted by defendant no.1 that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and is trying to take advantage of her own wrongs as the plaintiff has herself made illegal construction. It was submitted that plaintiff and her family members are persons who usually quarrel with the inhabitants of the locality and create nuisance therein. It was further submitted that the window against which plaintiff has grievance was fixed since the date of construction of the premises and is being used since long and same is fixed in the portion of defendant no.1 and the plaintiff has no right and title to object to the use of the said window by defendant no.1. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied by Suit No.7597/16 Page3/18 4 defendant no.1 and it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed as the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
3. The written statement was also filed on behalf of defendant no.2 wherein inter alia, it was submitted that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. That the distance between the house of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 is 100150 meters and the plaintiff has only filed the present suit to harass the defendant no.2. It was further stated that the plaintiff has falsely involved the son of defendant no.2 in some false and criminal case and the plaintiff is in the habit of filing false and frivolous cases. It was submitted that defendant no.2 has made some repairs in his own house and the allegation against the defendant no.2 are totally false. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied by defendant no.2 and it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed as the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
4. The written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.3 wherein inter alia, it was submitted that the suit property was allotted by DDA and is under the control and management of Slum and J.J. Department of MCD w.e.f. 01/09/1992. It was submitted that the issue of demolition of unauthorised construction and encroachment in the area has been transferred to MCD, General Wing in terms of the circular dt.15/09/1997. It was further stated that the allottees are mere licensee and have no right, title or interest in the suit property and, therefore, any sale or transfer, agreement to sell, GPA, etc. of the allottees/licensee have no validity in the eyes of law. It was further stated that the issue of unauthorised construction and encroachment falls under the jurisdiction of General Wing of MCD and as such the Slum and J.J. Department was wrongly impleaded by the plaintiff. It was further stated that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands as the plaintiff has herself erected a wall Suit No.7597/16 Page4/18 5 with the gate enclosing the common court yard and has also constructed stairs in the common court yard. It was further submitted by defendant no.3 that defendant no.1 & 2 have also constructed an extra room on the public land.
5. The written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.4/MCD wherein inter alia, it was submitted that the suit is barred by provisions of Section477 and 478 of the DMC Act as no notice was served by the plaintiff to the defendant no.4 prior to institution of the suit. It was further submitted that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as she is not the owner of the suit property. It was submitted that an inspection was carried out by the officials of MCD and it was found that there is encroachment in the properties as under :
(a) Property bearing No.J375 (property of the plaintiff). A plot of 18sqm was allotted to the owner/occupier but it was found that 36 sqm approximately exists at the ground and first floor.
(b) Property bearing No.J378 (property of the defendant no.1). A plot of 18sqm was allotted to the owner/occupier but it was found that 47 sqm approximately exists at the ground and first floor.
(c) Property bearing No.J358 (property of the defendant no.2). A plot of 18sqm was allotted to the owner/occupier but it was found that 46 sqm approximately exists at the ground and first floor.
The photographs showing encroachment/unauthorised construction by the plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 2 were annexed alongwith written statement of defendant no.4/MCD. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied by defendant no.4/MCD and it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
Suit No.7597/16 Page5/18
6
Issues :
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in the suit vide order dt.02/02/2012 :
(a) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 1 & 2
(b) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 1,3 & 4
(c) Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands? OPD 1 & 2
(d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
(e) Relief.
Evidence :
7. In order to prove her case, plaintiff got examined following witnesses :
(a) PW1 i.e. plaintiff herself and she led her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ext. PW1/A wherein she reiterated the averments made in the plaint. PW1 also relied upon certain documents which are as under : Identification Mark Description Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) Four photographs of the suit property.
Ex. PW1/2 Site plan.
Ex. PW1/3 Reply dt.14/07/2011 written by Executive Engineer
DDII to the plaintiff.
MarkP1 (Colly) Photocopy of complaints made by the plaintiff.
PW1/plaintiff was also crossexamined by the counsel for defendant no.2 & 3 and during her crossexamination, PW1/plaintiff stated that her house Suit No.7597/16 Page6/18 7 bearing No.375 and the adjoining house No.378 belongs to one Kaushalya Devi i.e. defendant no.1. She further stated that house of defendant no.2 is bearing No.378 and is situated one house adjoining to her house. She denied the suggestion of the counsel of defendant no.2 that the house of defendant no.2 is situated at the distance of 100 yards from her house. It was stated that house of defendant no.2 bears No.378 and 358 both. She admitted the fact that MCD officials had come to her house for demolition and demolished certain portion of her house. She further stated that MCD officials demolished two doors of the house of the defendant no.2 and staircase of the house of defendant no.1. She stated that defendant no.1 has extended a window towards her house. She further stated that there is a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no.2, but it pertains to an accident case.
During the crossexamination of PW1/plaintiff by the counsel for defendant no.3, PW1 stated that no official from DUSIB/defendant no.3 came to her house for demolition.
(b) Sh. Baljinder Singh was examined on behalf of the plaintiff as PW2 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW2/A and he did not rely upon any document. PW2 deposed that he is one of the complainant in respect of the scam for conspiracy in the allotment of 1984 Sikh Riot Victims Resettlement Colony Sector16, Rohini. He further stated that the defendants have safeguarded and protected the defendant no.1 & 2 to save skin of defendant no.1 & 2. He further stated that he has raised voice against the illegal acts of the defendants and filed various complaints against the defendant, but no action has been taken.
PW2 was crossexamined by the counsel for defendant no.2 and in his crossexamination he deposed that the property bearing No.J189 is in the name of his father and that plots cannot be transferred or partitioned nor can there Suit No.7597/16 Page7/18 8 be sale or purchase in any manner. He submitted that he has also made a complaint regarding the scam of distribution of plot and a case in this respect is also pending before the court of Ms. Kadambri Avasthi, Ld.M.M. Rohini Courts. He further stated that he know the plaintiff for 30 years and the plaintiff is not his relative. He further admitted the fact that plaintiff has not got the site plan sanctioned from any concerned authority. He further stated voluntarily that there is no such requirement as the construction is as per the sample flat. Nothing substantial came out from the deposition of PW2 as the PW2's deposition did not pertain to the facts of unauthorised construction made by the defendant no.1 & 2 against which plaintiff has approached the court. Rather, PW2 has not even made any mention of nature and shape of any unauthorised construction made by defendant no.1 & 2 and, hence, the deposition of the witness PW2 did not pertain to the facts in issue before this court.
Thereafter, PE was closed on the basis of statement of the plaintiff vide order dt.07/03/2018.
8. In order to prove their case, defendants got examined following witnesses :
(a) D2W1 i.e. the defendant no.2 who led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ext. D2W1/A wherein he reiterated the averments made in the written statement. No document was relied upon by the defendant no.2/D2W1 in his evidence affidavit.
D2W1/defendant no.2 was also crossexamined by the counsel for plaintiff wherein inter alia he submitted that he is residing in the house No.J358, Gali No.6, Sector16, Sardar Colony, Rohini, Delhi110089 since 1990 and house of the plaintiff is three plots away from his house. He further submitted that he has one room on the ground floor of his house and there are total four rooms in the property. He further stated that on the third floor he has made one Suit No.7597/16 Page8/18 9 room and his plot is 18meters/25sq. Yards. He admitted that MCD has taken demolition action against the defendant no.2's property regarding illegal construction. He further denied the suggestion of the counsel for plaintiff that after demolition he has again illegally constructed his property. He stated that MCD has demolished both the rooms which were constructed on the Government land situated outside the house. Evidence on behalf of defendant no.2 was closed vide statement of defendant no.2 recorded on 26/09/2018.
(b) Thereafter, defendant no.3/DUSIB examined Sh. Arun Kumar, Executive Engineer on behalf of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board as D3W1 who led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.D3W1/A. This witness also relied upon certain documents which are as under : Identification Description Mark MarkA Circular No.D/328/ADDL. COM(E)/97 dt.15/09/1997.
Ex. D3W1/2 Lay out plan of the area where the suit property is situated.
MarkX (Colly) Photocopy of office order bearing No.D/33/EE(P)II/97 dt.28/04/1997 and record with respect to handing and taking over of the entire area where the suit property is situated.
In his evidence affidavit, D3W1 stated that no action on behalf of defendant no.3/DUSIB was taken against the unauthorised construction and, hence, defendant no.3 is neither the necessary nor appropriate party in this case. He further stated that in view of the circular dt.15/09/1997 which was placed on record and marked as MarkA, the action for removal of unauthorised construction is to be taken by North MCD/defendant no.4 and not by defendant no.3.
Suit No.7597/16 Page9/18
10
D3W1 was crossexamined by counsel for the plaintiff whereby he submitted that the plot on which the property is made was allotted by defendant no.3. He further stated that department was previously known as Slum and J.J. Department MCD and presently it is known as DUSIB. He stated that he does not remember as to what was the size of the allotted plots. Thereafter, the D3W 1 brought the layout plan of the suit property which was placed on record and exhibited as Ex. D3W1/2. He also placed on record the photocopy of office order dt.28/04/1997 which was taken on record as MarkX. During his cross examination, he again stated that the said area was transferred to MCD around the year 1997. Evidence of defendant no.3 was closed on the basis of statement of counsel for defendant no.3 vide order dt.28/11/2018. Vide the said order, the right of other defendants to lead DE was also closed.
Decision with reasons :
9. The arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties at length and record has been carefully perused. Now, I shall give my issuewise findings which are as under : I shall take up issue No.(a) first and decide the same.
10. Issue No.(a)
(a) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 1 & 2 The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no.1 & 2. The plaintiff has filed the present case seeking permanent injunction against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 & 2 have raised the unauthorised construction in their property which are adjoining to the property of the plaintiff and despite the complaints of the plaintiff, defendant no.3 & 4 i.e. the concerned authorities have not taken any action. The onus to Suit No.7597/16 Page10/18 11 prove this issue was upon defendant no.1 & 2. Defendant no.1 has not led any evidence in the present case. In fact, defendant no.2 has also not led any evidence or any arguments to submit that the present case is not maintainable. Even otherwise, perusal of the record reveals that suit as such is maintainable against the defendants and it does not suffer from any legal infirmities and is required to be decided on merits.
Accordingly, issue no.(a) is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
11. Issue No.(b)
(b) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 1,3 & 4 The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no.1,3 & 4. Defendant no.1 and defendant no.4/MCD have not led any evidence in the present case. Perusal of the record reflects that plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 2 are residents of the plots in resettlement colony which was allotted to victims of 1984 Sikh riots.
It is trite that a neighbour can file a suit against the unauthorised construction as it affects the standard of living of nearby residents. From perusal of pleadings and evidence led, it is apparent that defendant no.1 is the neighbour of the plaintiff and also during the course of examination of D2W1/defendant no.2, he admitted that house of the plaintiff is only three plots away from his house, therefore, it is quite apparent that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 2 reside very close to each other and are neighbours. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is well within her rights to file a suit against unauthorised construction raised by defendant no.1 & 2.
Accordingly, issue no.(b) is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Suit No.7597/16 Page11/18
12
12. Issue No.(c) & (d)
(c) Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean
hands? OPD 1 & 2
(d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent and
mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
The onus to prove issue no.(c) was upon defendant no.1 & 2 and the onus to prove issue no.(d) was upon the plaintiff.
The onus to prove the fact that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands was upon defendant no.1 & 2. This defence has been taken by all the defendants in the present case. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 has illegally opened a window in his wall towards the side of the plaintiff's house and he is attempting to open a gate in his wall. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 & 2 have illegally constructed a room in the public land and that defendant no.1 has constructed stairs on the main road thereby encroaching upon the public land. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking injunction against defendant no.1 & 2 from raising any unauthorized construction and direction to defendant no.3 & 4 to demolish the unauthorized construction raised by defendant no.1 & 2.
At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the status report filed by the Executive Engineer, Rohini Zone, MCD on 18/04/2011. Perusal of the said status report reveals that upon inspection by the areas officials of MCD it was found that in the property bearing No.J375 which belongs to the plaintiff, there was construction of 36sq. Meters approximately at the ground and first floor whereas the plot which was allotted to the plaintiff was consisting of 18sq. Meters. Similarly it was noticed that there was construction of 46 sq. meters and 47 sq. meters in the property of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 respectively whereas they were also allotted a plot of 18 sq. meters each. An action taken report in respect of the property of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 2 was also Suit No.7597/16 Page12/18 13 filed by MCD on 16/12/2011 whereby it was submitted that encroachment removal action was taken on 14/12/2011 by the area officials of MCD alongwith requisite police force and the photographs of the demolition action was also placed on record alongwith the action taken report. It was further submitted that complete action could not be taken due to the properties being monolithic structures and a joint action is required to be taken alongwith the building department of MCD.
In fact, from the perusal of the written statement filed by defendant no.4/MCD as also discussed above, it is quite apparent that there is substantial unauthorized construction in the property of defendant no.1 & 2 and even of the plaintiff. It can be said that in a plot of a size of 18 sq. meters which was admittedly alloted to the plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 2, they have encroached to the extent of almost double or more, the area which was actually allotted to them. Even otherwise, the crossexamination of PW1 would reveal that it was admitted by the plaintiff that MCD officials had come to her house for demolition and in fact demolished certain extended portion of her house.
Therefore, perusal of the record would show that it is quite apparent from pleadings and evidence brought on record in the present case that there is unauthorised construction/encroachment made by defendant no.1 & 2 and even by the plaintiff herself in their allotted properties.
It is trite law that those who approach to court seeking equity must come with clean hands. The relief of injunction being an equitable relief, it is incumbent upon the person approaching to the court to come with a pair of clean hands and to disclose the material facts to be entitled to any relief.
It is a well known legal maxim and settled proposition of law that one must approach the court with clean hands. This legal maxim had its origin in equity courts and it tests the quality of litigants each time they pray for a particular relief in common law courts. The notion that one must approach the Suit No.7597/16 Page13/18 14 court with clean hands has been so indoctrinated in the common law system that all courts right from the trial court up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, are endowed with the responsibility to follow this principle so as to avoid the vexatious claims before it. This principle has been time and again reaffirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court and it is a settled law that a person who approaches the court for grants of relief equitable or otherwise is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have a bearing on the adjudication of issues raised in the case. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. It has been time and again reiterated that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on merits of his grievance (State of Haryana V/s Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., 1977 2SCC 431, Vijay Kumar Kathuria V/s State of Haryana, 1983 3SCC 333; K.D. Sharma V/s SAIL & Others, 2008 12SCC 481; Dalip Singh V/s State of UP & Others, CA No.5239/2002 decided on 03/12/09). It was held in Dalip V/s State of UP & Others decided on 03/12/09, by Hon'ble Apex Court that for many centuries, Indian Society challenged two basic values of life i.e. "Satya" (Truth) and "Ahinsa" (nonviolance) and truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system. The materialism has over shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of false hood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. It was further observed in the said case that 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. It has been observed time and again that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief, is applicable not only to the writ petitions filed but also Suit No.7597/16 Page14/18 15 to the cases instituted in other courts and judicial forums.
Applying aforesaid observations to the facts of the present case and after going through the evidence brought on record, it is quite apparent that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands as the plaintiff has herself made unauthorized construction in her own property. As per the report of the defendant no.4/MCD, the plaintiff has made encroachment upon the public land so much so that the 18 sq. meters plot which was initially allotted to the plaintiff was converted to a plot of 36 sq. meters. Therefore, the issue no.(c) is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants and it is held that the plaintiff has approached the court in the present case with unclean hands.
In view of the observations made while deciding issue no.(c), it is observed that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the present case.
13. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made in case titled as "Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. V/s Union Of India, {(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344}", wherein it was observed as under : "37. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In a large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section35(2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages the filing of frivolous suits. It also leads to the talking up of frivolous defences. Further, wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. When section35(2) provides for cost to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are reasonably incurred by a successful party except in those cases where the court in its discretion may direct otherwise by recording reasons therefor. The costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of the time spent by the successful party, the Suit No.7597/16 Page15/18 16 transportation and loding, if any, or any other incidental costs besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer's fee, typing and other costs in relation to the litigation. It is for the High Court to examine these aspects and wherever necessary make requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines for the subordinate courts to follow."
It is also relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made in case titled as "Ramrameshwari Devi & Others V/s Nirmala Devi & Others, {(2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 249}", wherein it was observed as under : "43. We have carefully examined the written submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the parties. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. 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 court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases.
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 drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials.
A.......
B......
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 Suit No.7597/16 Page16/18 17 prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."
This court is not oblivious of the fact that the present suit was instituted in the year 2000 and has been pending for adjudication since almost about 19 years. Considerable precious judicial time has been consumed during the progress of trial in the present case. It is high time that unscrupulous litigants such as the plaintiff in the present case be taken to task by the courts and are not allowed to go scot free so as to ensure that only bonafide and genuine cases are filed in the court and not the cases of present nature where due to personal vengeance and vendetta of parties, precious judicial time has been wasted at the behest of an unscrupulous plaintiff.
It is a matter of common knowledge that our courts are already overburdened with cases and increasing pendency has always been a major issue in the Indian judicial system. In such a scenario, frivolous litigation only adds up to draining the scarce resources available with the courts due to which inevitably, the genuine and bonafide claims have to suffer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the opinion of this court plaintiff deserves to be burdened with exemplary and punitive costs.
Therefore, this court considers it proper to impose exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/ upon the plaintiff while dismissing the present suit. Out of the total cost, Rs.10,000/ shall be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund and rest of Rs.10,000/ shall be deposited with the www.bharatkeveer.gov.in and receipt be placed on record by the plaintiff.
The cost shall be deposited within a month from today and receipt of the same be placed on record by the plaintiff. Let the file be consigned to record room with the direction to the Ahlmad that if the plaintiff fails to deposit the cost as directed, then the file be put up for initiating appropriate action/proceedings for recovery of the costs.
Suit No.7597/16 Page17/18
18
Further, it is clarified that the observations made herein shall not restrain the defendant no.3 & 4/MCD or any other appropriate government authority to take appropriate action as per law against the illegal or unauthorised construction made by either the plaintiff or the defendant no.1 & 2.
14. Relief - In view of the findings given on issues no.(a) to (d), documents placed on record, pleadings of the parties and evidence led by the parties, the plaintiff has failed to prove her case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL room after completing the necessary formalities. AGGARWAL Date: 2019.10.25 16:36:25 +0530 (BHARAT AGGARWAL) Civil Judge, Delhi (West)02 Announced in the open court on 25/10/2019.
Suit No.7597/16 Page18/18