Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

44. One of the examples cited as 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 a 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in also be satisfied that there is no change of the suit succeeding.

16 When the respondents / plaintiffs have been able to prevail upon one lawyer or the other to present to the Court, a case which was worse, it is nothing but gross abuse of the process of the Court, repeatedly made by the respondents / plaintiffs herein. It is not known how the lower appellate Court has lost to see the http://www.judis.nic.in flagrant misuse of the mercies of law, when the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint as the relitigation of the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against them, is barred as res judicata. When the lower appellate Court has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and Court from being wasted, the lower appellate Court miserably failed in its duty to go through even prima facie case of the appellants. When the Court had to consider different documents, evidence and more carefully the judgments and decrees passed by the lower Court on the same issue, the lower appellate Court, in my considered opinion, has miserably failed to keep a vigil on the issue raised by the appellants. As a result, this Court is constrained to waste its precious time on vexatious litigation.