Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1305 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for Mandatory injunction - recovery of mesne profits - stay u/s 10 of the CPC - claim of adverse possession - whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed - In the year 1952, the government allotted a residential house to Ram Parshad. The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964. On humane considerations of shelter, Ram Parshad allowed his three younger brothers to reside with him in the house. On 16.11.1977, these three younger brothers filed a Civil Suit in the High Court of Delhi claiming that this property belonged to a joint Hindu Family and sought partition of the property on that basis. HELD THAT - In the instant case when the entire question of title has been determined by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition against that judgment has been dismissed by this court, thereafter the trial court ought not to have framed such an issue on a point which has been finally determined upto this Court. In any case, the same was exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata. That clearly demonstrates total non-application of mind. 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. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of the ex-parte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex-parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation. The suit pending before the trial court is at the final stage of the arguments, therefore, the said suit is directed to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event within three months from the date of the communication of the order.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of Costs 2. Frivolous and Uncalled for Litigation 3. Delay in Civil Litigation 4. Framing of Issues 5. Granting of Ex-parte Ad Interim Injunctions 6. Realistic Costs and Restitution Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Costs The appeals were filed against the High Court's judgment and order imposing costs on the appellants. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appellants had created numerous obstacles during the trial. The court stated, "The appellants have seriously created obstacles at every stage during the course of trial and virtually prevented the court from proceeding with the suit." The court imposed a cost of Rs. 2,00,000 on the appellants, noting that "wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation." 2. Frivolous and Uncalled for Litigation The judgment highlighted that the appellants engaged in frivolous litigation to delay the trial. The court noted, "The appellants belong to that category of litigants whose only motive is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not to let the trial conclude." The court criticized the appellants for filing multiple applications and misleading the court with incorrect dates and events. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to curb such litigation to prevent clogging the judicial system. 3. Delay in Civil Litigation The court expressed concern over the delays in civil litigation, pointing out that the case had been pending for over four decades. The court stated, "This is a typical example of how an ordinary suit moves in our courts." The judgment included suggestions to improve the civil litigation process, such as careful scrutiny of pleadings and documents, imposition of realistic costs, and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 4. Framing of Issues The court criticized the mechanical framing of issues by the trial court without proper scrutiny. The judgment stated, "Framing of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation and it is the bounden duty of the court that due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the learned Presiding Judge while framing of issues." The court suggested that issues should be framed after recording the statements of the parties and partially hearing the matter. 5. Granting of Ex-parte Ad Interim Injunctions The court emphasized the need for caution while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The judgment stated, "The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders." The court suggested that ex-parte injunctions should be limited in duration and that the court should aim to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as possible. 6. Realistic Costs and Restitution The court stressed the importance of imposing realistic costs to discourage frivolous litigation. The judgment stated, "The courts do not impose realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and defenses and also adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics because the courts do not impose actual or realistic costs." The court suggested that imposing heavy costs and ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would help maintain the purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's imposition of costs and emphasizing the need to curb frivolous litigation. The court provided detailed suggestions to improve the civil litigation process, including careful scrutiny of pleadings, imposition of realistic costs, and cautious granting of ex-parte injunctions. The judgment serves as a significant step towards ensuring that the judicial system is not abused by unscrupulous litigants.
|