Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(viii) 2016 (3) LW 419 [Sub-Continental Equities Limited, Mauritius v. RVD Ramaiah & Ors.]

16. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations made in paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint are repetition of paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 12543 of 2013. Therefore, this Court cannot brush aside the contention of the learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner that the 1 st respondent/plaintiff has been set up by the petitioner in W.P. No. 12543 of 2013, namely, Mr.P.S.P.K. Maragatharaja Pandian, who failed to obtain favourable orders from this Court. Approaching the Civil Court to overcome the orders passed by this Court is a fraudulent Act. The parties are expected to approach the Court with clean hands. If any of the parties abuse the forum, the said proceedings are liable to be struck off as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in K.K.Modi V.K.N. Modi and others reported in 1998 3 SCC 573. The Honourable Apex Court, in the said judgment, held that Relitigation is an abuse of process of Court and paragraph 44 of the said judgment is usefully extracted as follows:

44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of process of the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of 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 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. 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 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 cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding.

26. I had an occasion to consider the issue of striking off the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and I referred to the following judgments in my order dated 16.02.2017 made in CRP (MD) No.563 of 2015 (PD).

(i) 1998 (3) SCC 573 [K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi and others], wherein at paragraph 44, it has been held as follows:-

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 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 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 cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding.