Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. We are in entire agreement with the finding of learned singles Judge on this issue.

17. In the recent decision of Honourable Supreme Court reported in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, . this question has been considered. Their Lordships explained what is meant by abuse of process and held that the Court should not encourage the practice of reagitating the same issue even in case where the matter may not be res judicata. In paragraphs 44 to 46 of the Judgment, their Lordships held thus, "44. One of the examples cited is an abuse of the process of the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue- is sought to be reagitated, 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. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the 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 the court's 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 cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit Succeeding.

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 relitigate 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 estoppel.