2010 (8) TMI 922 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in case a litigant files a review petition before filing the Special Leave Petition before this Court and it remains pending till the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed, the review petition deserves to be considered? Whether there has been a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant/applicant by the vendors which was registered on 21.5.1980 and he was put in possession?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of Process of Court
2. Review Petition after Superior Court's Decision
3. Fraud and Misrepresentation
4. Forcible Dispossession
5. Locus Standi of Respondents

Abuse of Process of Court:
The Supreme Court noted that despite multiple rounds of litigation up to the High Court and one round before the Supreme Court, the respondents continued to abuse the court process. The respondents aimed to protract the dispute indefinitely, undermining the stability and finality of judicial pronouncements.

Review Petition after Superior Court's Decision:
The respondents' review petition before the High Court was filed after the Supreme Court had dismissed their Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court cited precedents, including M/s. Kabari Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivnath Shroff and Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran, which established that filing a review petition after the dismissal of an SLP constitutes an abuse of process. The Court concluded that the High Court should not have entertained the review petition, as it amounted to an affront to judicial discipline.

Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The respondents claimed that the sale deed in favor of the appellant was fraudulent and that material facts were suppressed. The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts. However, the Court found no evidence linking the respondents to the suit land or proving any fraudulent activity by the appellant. The respondents failed to show any document supporting their claim to the land, and earlier proceedings had already addressed and dismissed allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.

Forcible Dispossession:
The Supreme Court emphasized that even a trespasser cannot be forcibly evicted without following due process. The respondents had forcibly occupied the suit land and raised unauthorized constructions. The Special Court had previously determined that the appellant was the rightful owner and that the respondents were land grabbers. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the respondents' forcible eviction of the appellant was unlawful.

Locus Standi of Respondents:
The respondents could not demonstrate any legitimate interest or right in the suit land. They were neither members of the cooperative society involved nor had any allotment been made in their favor. The Supreme Court found that the respondents lacked locus standi to challenge the appellant's ownership or to file applications regarding the suit land. The respondents' repeated litigation attempts were deemed frivolous and intended solely to delay the resolution of the case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in entertaining the respondents' writ petitions and review applications. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Special Court's orders dated 6.7.2006 and 11.7.2006, which had dismissed the respondents' applications. The appeals were allowed, and the respondents were found to have engaged in malicious prosecution and abuse of the court process.