LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Administration of justice - Civil litigation - Delay in disposal of civil cases/Uncalled for and frivolous litigation - Curbing of - Held: Steps to be taken by trial courts while dealing with criminal trials - Stated. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Actual or realistic costs - Determination of - Held: Pragmatic realities are to be taken into consideration and courts have to be realistic to what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts - Prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses are to be taken into consideration - It is to be seen that for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts - On facts, appellants harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts - They also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years - Thus, the appeals are dismissed with costs, quantified as Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith the costs imposed by the High Court which is Rs. 75,000/-, payable by the appellants to the respondents. Ex-parte ad interim injunctions - When to be granted - Held: The court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents - In case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases, then it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner would pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits - If an ex- parte injunction order is granted, then the court should dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible, as soon as the defendant appears in the court - It should be granted only for a short period - If party obtains an injunction based on false averments and forged documents, he should be prosecuted. Framing of issues - Duty of the court - Held: Framing of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation - Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the Presiding Judge while framing of issues - On facts, the trial court ought not to have framed an issue on a point which was finally determined upto this Court - The same was exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata - Doctrines/Principles. `RP' was allotted a house and on humane considerations of shelter, he allowed his brothers-appellants to reside with him. The appellants filed a suit for partition in the year 1977, which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed a Regular First Appeal. During pendency, `RP' filed a suit against the appellants for mandatory injunction to remove them and for recovery of mesne profits. Meanwhile, `RP' sold part of his property. Thereafter, RFA was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. The suit for mandatory injunction stood revived. Thereafter, applications after applications were filed by the appellants at every stage raising various claims. The issues were framed. Finally, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition which was filed in the year 2010, rendered at the preliminary hearing and imposed cost of Rs. 75,000/-. The Review Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. Thus, the appellants filed the instant appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 If the remedial measures and suggestions to improve the aspect of delay in disposal of civil cases are implemented in proper perspective, then the present justice delivery system of civil litigation would certainly improve to a great extent. [Para 32] [1017-H; 1018-A] "Justice, Courts and Delays" by Dr. Arun Mohan - referred to. 1.2 90% of the time and resources of the Indian courts are consumed in attending to uncalled for litigation, which is created only because our current procedures and practices hold out an incentive for the wrong- doer. Those involved receive less than full justice and there are many more in the country, in fact, a greater number than those involved who suffer injustice because they have little access to justice, in fact, lack of awareness and confidence in the justice system. In the Indian legal system, uncalled for litigation gets encouragement because our courts do not impose realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics because the courts do not impose actual or realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains uncompensated in the courts and that operates as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants. Unless the courts, by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for motivation or the incentives, uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court time and resources will be consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied. [Paras 33 and 34] [1018-A-F] 1.3 Lesser the court's attention towards full restitution and realistic costs, which translates as profit for the wrongdoer, the greater would be the generation of uncalled for litigation and exercise of skills for achieving delays by impurity in presentation and deployment of obstructive tactics. The cost (risk) - benefit ratio is directly dependent on what costs and penalties will the court impose on him; and the benefit will come in as: the other `succumbing' en route and or leaving a profit for him, or even if it is a fight to the end, the court still leaving a profit with him as unrestituted gains or unassessed short levied costs. Litigation perception of the probability of the other party getting tired and succumbing to the delays and settling with him and the court ultimately awarding what kind of restitution, costs and fines against him - paltry or realistic. This perception ought to be the real risk evaluation. [Paras 35, 36] [1018-G-H; 1019-A-B] 1.4 If the appellants had the apprehension of imposition of realistic costs or restitution, then this litigation perhaps would not have been filed. Ideally, having lost up to the highest court (2001), the appellants (defendants in the suit) ought to have vacated the premises and moved out on their own, but the appellants seem to have acted as most parties do- calculate the cost (risk)-benefit ratio between surrendering on their own and continuing to contest before the court. Procrastinating litigation is common place because, in practice, the courts are reluctant to order restitution and actual cost incurred by the other side. [Para 37] [1019-C- D] 1.5 Every lease on its expiry, or a license on its revocation cannot be converted itself into litigation. Unfortunately, the courts are flooded with these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrong- doers in our system. It is a matter of common knowledge that domestic servants, gardeners, watchmen, caretakers or security men employed in a premises, whose status is that of a licensee indiscriminately file suits for injunction not to be dispossessed by making all kinds of averments and may be even filing a forged document, and then demands a chunk of money for withdrawing the suit. It is happening because it is the general impression that even if ultimately unauthorized person is thrown out of the premises the court would not ordinarily punish the unauthorized person by awarding realistic and actual mesne profits, imposing costs or ordering prosecution. [Para 38] [1019-E-G; 1020-A] 1.6 It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of flats and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities and metropolitan cities, because owners are not certain that even after expiry of lease or licence period, the house, flat or the apartment would be vacated or not. It takes decades for final determination of the controversy and wrongdoers are never adequately punished. Pragmatic approach of the courts would partly solve the housing problem of this country. The courts have to be extremely careful in granting ad-interim ex-parte injunction. If injunction has been granted on the basis of false pleadings or forged documents, then the concerned court must impose costs, grant realistic or actual mesne profits and/or order prosecution. This must be done to discourage the dishonest and unscrupulous litigants from abusing the judicial system. In substance, the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer is to be removed. While granting ad interim ex-parte injunction or stay order the court must record undertaking from the plaintiff or the petitioner that he will have to pay mesne profits at the market rate and costs in the event of dismissal of interim application and the suit. [Paras 39, 40 and 41] [1020-B-E] 1.7 In the instant case, the court should have first examined the pleadings and then not only granted leave to amend but directed amendment of the pleadings so that the parties were confined to those pleas which still survived the High Court's decision. Secondly, it should have directed discovery and production of documents and their admission/denial. Thirdly, if the civil judge on 6.10.2004, which was three and a half years after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, instead of framing the issues that he did, had, after recording the statements of the parties and partially hearing the matter should have passed the order that the pleadings were not sufficient to raise an issue for adverse possession and that the pleadings and contentions before the High Court had the effect of completely negating any claim to adverse possession. [Para 42] [1020-F-H; 1021-A-B] 1.8 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 Presiding Judge while framing of issues. In the instant case, when the entire question of title had been determined by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition against that judgment was 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. [Paras 43 and 44] [1021-C-D] 1.9 Unless it is ensured that wrong- doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. 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. [Para 45] [1021-E-F] 1.10 Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits. If an ex-parte injunction order is granted, then in that case an endeavour should be made to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible, preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court. [Paras 46 and 47] [1021-G-H; 1022-A-C] 1.11 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. The common impression is to be dispelled 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 the courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. [Para 48] [1022-D-G] 1.12 With regard to the issue of curbing the prevailing delay in civil litigation, the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials: A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed. B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Code. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice. C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits. E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed. F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court. G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice. H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice. I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided. J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed. The aforementioned steps may help the courts to drastically improve the existing system of administration of civil litigation in our Courts. No doubt, it would take some time for the courts, litigants and the advocates to follow the said steps, but once it is observed across the country, then prevailing system of adjudication of civil courts is bound to improve. [Para 53] [1023-G-H; 1024-A-H; 1025-A-H; 1026-A] 1.13 While imposing costs the pragmatic realities are to be taken into consideration and be realistic what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. The prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc. are to be also broadly taken into consideration. It should not be forgotten while imposing costs that for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years. [Paras 54 and 55] [1026-B-E] 1.14 On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there is no infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which is quantified as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The costs are imposed not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation. The appellants are directed to pay the costs imposed by this Court along with the costs imposed by the High Court to the respondents within the stipulated period. 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. [Paras 56, 57 and 58] [1026-F-H] 1.15 It is made abundantly clear that the trial court should not be influenced by any observation or finding arrived at by this Court in dealing with these appeals as the matter has not been decided on merits of the case. [Para 59] [1027-B] Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668: 2000 (3) SCR 572; Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34: 2008 (10) SCR 869 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2000 (3) SCR 572 Referred to Para 48 2008 (10) SCR 869 Referred to Para 51 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4912-4913 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2010 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 and order dated 25.10.2010 in Review Petition No. 429 of 2010. Dr. Arun Mohan, (A.C.), Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma, Tulika Prakash, Kuber Giri for the Appellants. R.P. Sharma for the Respondents.


                                                          REPORTABLE


                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



          CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4912-4913      OF 2011

         (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3157-3158 of 2011)





Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors.                         ...Appellants



      Versus



Nirmala Devi and Ors.                                     ...Respondents




                             JUDGEMENT




Dalveer Bhandari, J.


1.    Leave granted.



2.    These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   judgment   and



order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition



(Main)   No.   1084   of   2010   and   the   order   dated   25.10.2010



passed   in   Review   Petition   No.   429   of   2010   in   Civil



Miscellaneous   Petition   (Main)   No.   1084   of   2010   by   the   High



Court of Delhi at New Delhi.





                                                                         1


3.    The   apparent   discernible   question   which   requires



adjudication   in   this   case   seems   to   be   a   trivial,   insignificant



and small one regarding imposition of costs, but in fact, these



appeals have raised several important questions of law of great



importance   which   we   propose   to   deal   in   this   judgment.



Looking to the importance of the matter we requested Dr. Arun



Mohan, a distinguished senior advocate to assist this court as



an Amicus Curiae.




4.    This   is   a   classic   example   which   abundantly   depicts   the



picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how



unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity



harass   the   respondents   and   their   children   by   abusing   the



judicial system.




5.    The   basic   facts   which   are   necessary   to   dispose   of   these



appeals are recapitulated as under:-




6.    In   the   year   1952,   almost   about   half   a   century   ago,   the



government     allotted a residential house bearing nos. 61-62,





                                                                             2


I-Block, Lajpat Nagar-I, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad.



The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964.




7.    On   humane   considerations   of   shelter,   Ram   Parshad



allowed   his   three   younger   brothers   -   Madan   Lal,   Krishan



Gopal and Manohar Lal to reside with him in the house.                   On



16.11.1977,   these   three   younger   brothers   filed   a   Civil   Suit



No.993  of  1977  in  the   High  Court   of  Delhi  claiming  that  this



Lajpat   Nagar   property   belonged   to   a   joint   Hindu   Family   and



sought partition of the property on that basis.




8.    The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 18.01.1982



by   the   learned  Single   Judge   of  the   High  Court   of   Delhi.     The



appellants   (younger   brothers)   of   Ram   Parshad,   aggrieved   by



the   said   judgment   preferred   a   Regular   First   Appeal   (Original



Side) 4 of 1982 which was admitted to hearing on 09.03.1982.



During   the   pendency   of   the   appeal,   Ram   Parshad   on



15.01.1992 filed a suit against his three younger brothers for



mandatory   injunction   to   remove   them   and   for   recovery   of



mesne profits.  In 1984 Ram Parshad sold western half (No.61)



to an outsider.  That matter is no longer in dispute.




                                                                             3


9.          The first appeal filed by the other three younger brothers



of   Ram   Parshad   against   Ram   Parshad   was   dismissed   on



09.11.2000.     Against   the   concurrent   findings   of   both   of   the



judgments,   the   appellants   filed   a   Special   Leave   Petition



No.3740   of   2001   in   this   court   which   was   also   dismissed   on



16.03.2001.




10.         In the suit filed by Ram Parshad (one of the respondents)



(now   deceased)   against   the   appellants   in   these   appeals   the



following issues were framed:




      1.      Whether   the   suit   is   liable   to   be   stayed   under   Section



              10   CPC   as   alleged   in   para   no.1   of   Preliminary



              Objection?



      2.      Whether defendants are licencees in the suit premises



              and   if   so   whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   recover



              possession of the same from them?



      3.      Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred?



      4.      Whether suit has been properly valued for the purpose



              of court fees and jurisdiction?





                                                                                   4


   5.       Whether   the   suit   property   is   joint   family   property   of



            parties?



   6.       Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   mesne   profits   for



            use   and   occupation   of   the   suit   property   by   the



            defendants   and   if   so   at   what   rate   and   for   which



            period?



   7.       Whether   defendants  have   become   the   owner   of  three-



            fourth   share   of   the   suit   property   by   adverse



            possession?



   8.       Relief.



and fixed the matter for evidence on 22.11.2004.




11.      The   defendants   in   the   suit   contended  that  inasmuch   as



Regular   First   Appeal   (Original   Side)   4   of   1982   was   still



pending,   therefore,   Ram   Parshad's   suit   be   stayed   under



section   10   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure.     Accepting   the



contention,   on   20.07.1992,   the   1992   suit   was   ordered   to   be



stayed.




12.      The   Regular   First   Appeal   was   dismissed   on   9.11.2000



and the Special leave petition against the said appeal was also




                                                                               5


dismissed  on  16.3.2001.   Consequently,   the  suit  filed by   Ram



Parshad   for   mandatory  injunction   and  for   mesne  profit   stood



revived on 05.12.2001.



13.    In   the   first   round   of   litigation   from   16.11.1977   to



16.3.2001 it took about twenty four years and thereafter it had



taken   10   years   from   16.3.2001.     In   the   1992   suit,   the



defendants   (appellants   herein)   sought   amendment   of   the



written statement which was refused on 28.07.2004.   Against



this order, a Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 1153 of 2004 was filed



in the High Court which was disposed of on 02.09.2004 with



liberty to move an application before the trial court for framing



an additional issue.   The additional issue regarding the claim



of   adverse   possession   by   the   three   younger   brothers   was



framed on 6.10.2004.   The issue was whether the defendants



have   become   the   owner   of   three-fourth   share   of   the   suit



property by adverse possession and the case was fixed up for



recording   of   the   evidence.     According   to   the   learned   Amicus



Curiae, the court before framing Issue Number 7 and retaining



the   other   issues,   ought   to   have   recorded   the   statement   of



defendants   under   Order   10   Rule   2   of   the   Code   of   the   Civil




                                                                            6


Procedure   (for   short,   CPC)   and   then   re-cast   the   issues   as



would have been appropriate on the pleadings of the parties as



they would survive after the decision in the previous litigation.



14.    According   to   the   learned   Amicus   Curiae,   the   practice   of



mechanically   framing   the   issues   needs   to   be   discouraged.



Framing of issues is an important exercise.   Utmost care and



attention   is   required   to   be   bestowed   by   the   judicial



officers/judges   at   the   time   of   framing   of   issues.   According   to



Dr.   Arun   Mohan,   twenty   minutes   spent   at   that   time   would



have saved several years in court proceedings.



15.    In the suit, on 6.11.2004 the application seeking transfer



of  the  suit  from  that  court  was  filed  which   was  dismissed  by



the learned District Judge on 22.3.2005.  The trial commenced



on   22.11.2004,   adjournment   was   sought   and   was   granted



against   costs.     The   plaintiffs'   evidence   was   concluded   on



10.2.2005.



16.    On   28.5.2005   the   defendants   failed   to   produce   the



evidence   and   their   evidence   was   closed.     Against   that   order,



Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 1490 of 2005 was filed in the Delhi



High   Court.     Stay   was   granted   on   15.7.2005   and   the




                                                                             7


application was dismissed on 17.12.2007 with liberty to move



an application for taking on record further documents.



17.    On   12.2.2008,   an   application   under   Order   18   Rule   17A



of the CPC was moved.  On `No Objection' from the plaintiff, it



was   allowed   on   31.7.2008   and   the   documents   and   affidavits



were taken  on record.     On 23.10.2009, the matter  was fixed



for evidence.   The appellants filed an application under Order



7 Rule 11 (b) of the CPC for rejection of the 1992 plaint on the



ground   of   not   paying   ad   valorem   court   fees   on   the   market



value   of   property   and   for   under-valuation   of   relief.     This



application   was   dismissed   by   the   Civil   Judge   on   09.07.2010



by the following order :-



                    "M-61/2006

                    09.07.2010

                    Present : Ld. Counsel for plaintiff

                                 Ld. Counsel for defendant


                Application   under   section   151   CPC   is   filed

          by   defendant   for   treating   Issue   No.4   as

          preliminary   issue.     It   pertains   to   court   fees   and

          jurisdiction.     It  is   pertinent   to   mention   that   suit

          is   at   the   stage   of   final   arguments   and   both   the

          parties have led the entire evidence.  Ld. Counsel

          for   defendant   submits   that   this   application   has

          been filed by the defendant in view of the liberty

          granted   to   the   defendant   by   the   Hon'ble   High

          Court vide order dated 26.4.2010 dismissing the





                                                                                8


Civil   Revision   Petition   application   no.76/10   as

withdrawn   against   the   order   dated   12.10.2006

passed   by   this   court.     It   is   pointed   out   to   the

counsel for defendant that case is at the stage of

final   arguments   and   law   enjoins   upon   the   court

to   return   finding   on   all   the   issues.     Counsel   for

the   defendant   filing   this   application   seeks

disposal   of   the   same.     Perused   the   application

and   gone   through   record.     Order   20   Rule   5

clearly states that court has to return finding on

each   issue.     Even   Order   14   Rule   2   CPC   states

that the court has to pronounce the judgment on

all   issues   notwithstanding   that   the   case   may   be

disposed   off   on   preliminary   issue.     Sub   Rule   2

refers   to   the   discretion   given   to   the   court   where

the   court   may   try   issue   relating   to   the

jurisdiction   of   the   court   or   the   bar   to   the   suit

created by any law for the time being in force as

preliminary issue.  It further relates to disposal of

the   suit   treating   these   points   as   preliminary

issues and also relates to deferring the settlement

of other issues. But there is no such case.  Entire

evidence has been led, the matter is at the stage

of final arguments and the point raised does not

relate   to   the   point   pertaining   to   Sub   Rule   2.

Neither   it   relates   to   bar   created   by   any   law   nor

the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.

It is averments made in the plaint.  Contention of

the applicant for treating the issue as preliminary

issue   is   against   the   spirit   of   law   as   referred   in

Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.   I do

not   see   any   merit   in   this   application   and   the

same is dismissed with the costs of Rs.2000/-.

          To come up for payment of cost and final

   arguments.


          Put up on 09.08.2010


                                           (Vipin Kumar Rai)





                                                                        9


                                                        ACJ/ARC(W)"




18.    Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2009, the defendants



(appellants herein) preferred a Civil Revision Petition No.76 of



2010   in   the   High   Court   of   Delhi.   At   the   preliminary   hearing,



the   petition   was   allowed   to   be   withdrawn,   leaving   the   trial



court   at   liberty   to   consider   the   request   of   the   appellants   to



treat   Issue   Number   4   regarding   court   fee   as   a   preliminary



issue.




19.    On 09.07.2010, the defendants filed an application before



the   Civil   Judge   for   treating   Issue  Number   4  as   a  preliminary



issue.     This   application   was   rejected   by   the   Civil   Court   on



9.7.2010   with   costs.     The   matter   is   at   the   stage   of   final



arguments   before   the   trial   court.     At   this   stage,   against   the



order   of   the   Civil   Judge,   on   7.8.2010,   the   appellants   filed   a



petition   being   Civil   Miscellaneous   (Main)   No.1084   of   2010



under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court which



came up for preliminary hearing on 26.8.2010.   On 1.9.2010,



the   High   Court   dismissed   the   Civil   Miscellaneous   (Main)



No.1084   of   2010   by   a   detailed   judgment   rendered   at   the




                                                                              1


preliminary   hearing   and   imposed   cost   of   Rs.75000/-   to   be



deposited with the Registrar General.  Review Petition No. 429



of 2010 was filed which was dismissed on 25.10.2010.




20.    These appeals have been filed against the order imposing



costs and dismissing the review petition.





21.    The   learned   Single   Judge   observed   that   the   present



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.     Applications   after   applications   are



being   filed   by   the   appellants   at   every   stage,   even   though



orders   of   the   trial   court   are   based   on   sound   reasoning.



Moreover,  the  appellants  have  tried  to  mislead  the  court  also



by filing wrong synopsis and incorrect dates of events.




22.    The   High   Court   further   observed   that   the   purpose   of



filing   of  brief  synopsis   with  list   of  dates  and  events  is  to   give



brief and correct summary of the case and not to mislead the



court.     Those   litigants   or   their   advocates   who   mislead   the





                                                                              1


courts   by   filing   wrong   and   incorrect   particulars   (the   list   of



dates and events) must be dealt with heavy hands.




23.    In   the   list   of   dates   and   events,   it   is   stated   that   the



respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery



of Rs.36,000/- on 22nd September, 2003.  In fact, as per typed



copy   of  the   plaint   placed  on  record,   the   suit  was   filed   by   the



predecessor-in-interest   of   the   respondents   in   1992.     Written



statement   was   filed   by   the   predecessor-in-interest   of   the



appellants in 1992.   Thus, the appellants tried to mislead the



court   by   mentioning   wrong   date   of   22nd  September,   2003   as



the date of filing.




24.    The High Court has also dealt with number of judgments



dealing with the power of the High Court under Article 227 of



the   Constitution.     According   to   the   High   Court,   the   suit   was



filed in the trial court in 1992. The written statement was filed



as far back on 15th April, 1992.   On pleadings, Issue Number



4   was   framed   with   regard   to   court   fee   and   jurisdiction.     The



appellants never pressed that Issue Number 4 be treated as a



preliminary   issue.     Both   the   parties   led   their   respective




                                                                                1


evidence.     When   the   suit   was   fixed   before   the   trial   court   for



final   arguments,   application   in   question   was   filed.     The



appellants   argued   that   Issue   Number   4   would   also   be



determined along with other issues.




25.    In   the   impugned   judgment,   it   is   also   observed  that  it   is



revealed from the record that the appellants have been moving



one application after the other, though all were dismissed with



costs.




26.    It   may   be   pertinent   to   mention   that   the   appellants   also



moved   transfer   application   apprehending   adverse   order   from



the   trial   judge,   which   was   also   dismissed   by   the   learned



District   Judge.     This   conduct   of   the   appellants   demonstrates



that they are determined not to allow the trial court to proceed



with   the   suit.     They   are   creating   all   kinds   of   hurdles   and



obstacles at every stage of the proceedings.




27.    The learned Single Judge observed that even according to



Order 14 Rule 2 CPC the court has to pronounce the judgment



on all issues notwithstanding that the case may be disposed of





                                                                               1


on preliminary issue.   Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC is reads as



under:



              "ORDER XIV:   SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND

              DETERMINATION   OF   SUIT   ON   ISSUES   OF

              LAW OR ON ISSUES AGREED UPON.

                                   ... ... ...

                                   ... ... ...

              2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues:

              (1)   Notwithstanding   that   a   case   may   be

              disposed   of   on   a   preliminary   issue,   the   Court

              shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2),

              pronounce judgment on all issues.

                                   ... ... ...

                                   ... ... ..."



28.    Sub   Rule   2   refers   to   the   discretion   given   to   the   court



where the court may try issue relating to the jurisdiction of the



court   or   the   bar   to   the   suit   created   by   any   law   for   the   time



being   in   force   as   preliminary   issue.     It   further   relates   to



disposal of the suit treating these points as preliminary issues



and also relates to deferring the settlement of other issues, but



there is no  such case.   The entire  evidence has been led, the



matter is at the stage of final arguments and the point raised



does not relate to the point pertaining to Sub Rule 2.   Neither



it relates to bar created by any law nor the jurisdiction of the



court to entertain the suit. It is just an averment made in the





                                                                                   1


plaint.  Contention of the appellants for treating the said issue



as preliminary issue is against the spirit of law as referred in



Order   20   Rule   5   and   Order   14   Rule   5   of   the   CPC.     These



observations of the courts below are correct and in pursuance



of the provisions of the Act.  The High Court properly analysed



the order of the trial court and observed as under:-



             "Looking   from   any   angle,   no   illegality   or

             infirmity   can   be   found   in   the   impugned

             order.     The   only   object   of   petitioners   is

             just   to   delay   the   trial,   which   is   pending

             for   the   last   more   than   18   years.     To   a

             large   extent,   petitioners   have   been

             successful   in   delaying   the   judicial

             proceedings   by   filing   false,   frivolous   and

             bogus applications, one after the other.




             It   is   well   settled   that   frivolous   litigation

             clogs   the   wheels   of   justice   making   it

             difficult   for   courts   to   provide   easy   and

             speedy justice to the genuine litigations.



                    Dismissed

                    List   for   compliance   on   7th  October,

                    2010."




29.    We   have   carefully   examined   the   impugned   judgment   of



the   High  Court   and   also   order   dated   9.7.2010   passed  by   the



learned Civil Judge, Delhi.





                                                                            1


30.    It   is   abundantly   clear   from   the   facts   and   circumstances



of   this   case   that   the   appellants   have   seriously   created



obstacles at every stage during the course of trial and virtually



prevented   the   court   from   proceeding   with   the   suit.     This  is   a



typical example of how an ordinary suit moves in our courts.



Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants on one ground



or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the



matter.




31.    The   learned   Amicus   Curiae   has   taken   great   pains   in



giving details of how the case has proceeded in the trial court



by reproducing the entire court orders of 1992 suit.   In order



to   properly   comprehend   the   functioning   of   the   trial   courts,



while   dealing   with   civil   cases,   we   deem   it   appropriate   to



reproduce   the   order   sheets   of   1992   suit.     This   is   a   typical



example of how a usual civil trial proceeds in our courts.   The



credibility   of   entire   judiciary   is   at   stake   unless   effective



remedial steps are taken without further loss of time.  Though



original litigation and the appeal which commenced from 1977



but in order to avoid expanding the scope of these appeals, we




                                                                              1


are   dealing  only   with   the  second   litigation   which   commenced



in 1992.   The order sheets of the suit of 1992 are reproduced



as under :-



                     Proceedings of Suit - 1992



      17.01.1992        Summons to Defendants on plaintiff

                        and RC



      28.02.1992        Fresh summons to Defendants 1 &

                        2.  Defendant No. 3 refused service.

                        Proceeded ex-parte



      30.03.1992        Time sought to file Written

                        Statement for all the Defendants.

                        Allowed.



      20.04.1992        Written   Statement   filed.     Fixed   on

                        30.04.1992           for         replication,

                        admission/denial   and   framing   of

                        issues.



      01.05.1992        Plaintiff   sought   time   to   file

                        replication.



      11.05.1992        Replication   filed.     Adjourned   for

                        admission/ denial on joint request.



      26.05.1992        No   document   for   admission/denial.

                        Issues framed.   Fixed for arguments

                        on 17.07.1992.




      17.07.1992        Arguments   heard   on   preliminary

                        issue.





                                                                          1


20.07.1992    Suit stayed.  Plaintiff granted liberty

              to   make  application   for   revival  after

              disposal of RFA (OS) 4/82.



01.06.2001    File   sent   to   District   Judge   for

              transferring   the   case   to   proper

              court.



04.06.2001    District Judge marked to case to the

              court   of   Shri   Naipal   Singh,

              Additional District Judge.



02.07.2001    Presiding   Officer   is   on   vacation

              leave.  Fixed for 03.07.2001.



03.07.2001    Miscellaneous   application   notice

              issued to the respondent.  Main Suit

              47/92 summoned.



23.08.2001    Suit   file   be   summoned.     Notice   of

              application   to   Defendant   on   PF   &

              RC.



16.10.2001    Copy   of   application   given   to   all   the

              Defendants.     Adjourned   for   reply   to

              application and further proceedings.



05.12.2001    Suit has to proceed for the decision

              on merits.



28.02.2002    Application   under   Order   6   Rule   17

              moved by Defendant for amendment

              of Written Statement.  Adjourned for

              reply   and   arguments   on   the

              application.



16.04.2002    As   the   value   of   the   suit   is   below   3

              lakhs,   the   suit   transferred   to   the

              court of Civil Judge.




                                                                      1


23.04.2002    Reply to application filed. Summons

              to Defendants other than Defendant

              No. 3.



21.08.2002    Counsel for the parties not present.



28.11.2002    Presiding Officer on leave.



07.12.2002    At   joint   request,   adjourned.     Last

              opportunity.



22.09.2003    None   present.            Adjourned   for

              arguments on Order 6 Rule 17.  File

              transferred   to   the   court   of   Shri

              Prashant Kumar, Civil Judge.



12.11.2003    Son   of   the   Plaintiff   stated   that   the

              Plaintiff has expired.  Adjourned.



06.12.2003    Presiding Officer not available.



16.01.2004    Copy   of  application   under   Order   22

              Rule   3   supplied.     As   requested,

              adjourned.



16.02.2004    Reply   not   filed.     Counsel   for   the

              Defendant seeks time to file reply.



01.03.2004    Reply   filed.          Counsel   for   the

              Defendant           objected         that         the

              addresses   of   Legal   Representatives

              are not correct.



24.03.2004    Application   Order   22   Rule   3   is

              allowed.     Right   to   sue   survives.

              Order   6   Rule   17   pending   for

              disposal.





                                                                        1


27.04.2004       Arguments heard.



22.05.2004       Plaintiff   wants   to   file   written

                 submissions            with              regard            to

                 clarification.  Allowed.



03.07.2004       None   for   Defendants.                          Written

                 submissions filed by Plaintiff.



28.7.2004        Present   none.     Order   6   Rule   17

                 dismissed.

02.09.2004       None   for   Defendants.     Fixed   for   PE

to 06.10.2004



28.09.2004       Defendant   moved   application   Order

                 14 Rule 5.  Notice issued.



06.10.2004       Issues   reframed.     Defendant   sought

                 time to cross-examine PW.



22.11.2004       PW   present.     Defendant   prayed   for

                 adjournment.             Defendant   moved

                 application   for   transfer   of   the   case.

                 Last         opportunity                 for         cross-

                 examination.



21.12.2004       PW   present.     Previous   cost   not

                 pressed   for.     PW   sought   time   for

                 obtaining copies of documents.



10.02.2005       PW cross-examined.  PE closed.



15.03.2005       No DW present



19.04.2005       Affidavit   of   DW   filed.     However   DW

                 stated   that   he   is   not   feeling   well.

                 Adjourned.





                                                                                   2


28.05.2004    Defendant   stated   that   he   does   not

              want   to   lead   evidence.     DE   closed.

              Fixed for final arguments.



15.07.2005    Stay by the High Court in CM (Main)

              1490/2005.



18.07.2005    Counsel   for   the   Defendant   states

              that   the   High   Court   has   stayed   the

              matter.     Directed   to   file   the   copy   of

              the order.



25.08.2005    No copy of the order is filed.



29.10.2005    Matter under stay by High Court.



30.01.2006    Fresh   suit   received   by   transfer.

              Adjourned for proper orders.



02.05.2006    Notice to Defendants.



31.05.2006    Counsel   for   the   Defendants   served

              but   none   appeared.     Adjourned   for

              final arguments.



21.08.2006    File not traceable.  Adjourned.



09.12.2006    Present:     Counsel   for   the   plaintiff.

              Adjourned for final arguments.



19.02.2007    Counsel            for         the         plaintiff.

              Proceedings   stayed   by   the   High

              Court.



21.08.2007    Counsel for the Plaintiff.                   Matter

              under stay by the High Court.



17.12.2007    CM (Main) 1490/2005 dismissed by

              the High Court.  Stay vacated.




                                                                        2


10.1.2008Counsel   for   the   Plaintiff.     None   for   the

           Defendant.  Adjourned.



12.02.2008        Defendant   filed   application   O18

                  R17A.     Copy   supplied.     Adjourned

                  for reply and ar guments.



30.04.2008        Reply   filed   by   the   Plaintiff.

                  Application   allowed   to   cost   of

                  Rs.7,000/-, out of which Rs.1,000/-

                  to   be   deposited   in   Legal   Aid.

                  Adjourned for DE.



31.07.2008        Defendant   sought   adjournment   on

                  the   ground   that   witness   is   not

                  feeling well.



29.9.2008         Plaintiff   moved   application   Order   6

                  Rule 17.  Copy supplied.



23.12.2008        Reply filed.  Come up for arguments

                  on the application.



21.5.2009         Part arguments heard.



22.07.2009        Plaintiff   does   not   press   for   the

                  application.     Dismissed.     To   come

                  up for DE.



05.10.2009        Defendants   witness   not   present.

                  Application   for   exemption   allowed.

                  Affidavit already filed.



23.10.2009        Application   under   Order   7   Rule   1

                  CPC   filed.     Dismissed.     Affidavit   of

                  Kishan   Gopal     tendered   as   DW1,

                  and   he   is   cross-examined   and





                                                                     2


                        discharged.     No   other   witness.     DE

                        closed.



       11.01.2010       Presiding Officer on leave.



       23.03.2010       Defendant   seeks   adjournment   on

                        the   ground   that   main   counsel   not

                        available.



       3.5.2010         Adjournment   sought   on   behalf   of

                        the parties.



       26.5.2010        File not traceable.



       9.7.2010         Application   under   Section   151   CPC

                        for   treating   No.   4   as   preliminary

                        issue.        Dismissed   with   cost   of

                        Rs.2,000/-



       9.8.2010         Application for adjournment filed.



       27.9.2010        Presiding Officer on leave.



       23.10.2010       For final arguments.



       18.12.2010       For final arguments.



       22.1.2011        For final arguments.



       5.2.2011         For final arguments.



       26.2.2011        Sought   adjournment   on   the   ground

                        that   the   matter   regarding   cost   is

                        pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court.




32.    Dr.  Arun  Mohan,  learned   amicus  curiae,   has written   an



extremely   useful,   informative   and   unusual   book  "Justice,




                                                                         2


Courts   and   Delays".    This   book   also   deals   with   the   main



causes   of   delay   in   the   administration   of   justice.   He   has   also



suggested some effective remedial measures.  We would briefly



deal   with   the   aspect   of   delay   in   disposal   of   civil   cases   and



some   remedial   measures   and   suggestions   to   improve   the



situation.   According   to   our   considered   view,   if   these



suggestions   are   implemented   in   proper   perspective,   then   the



present   justice   delivery   system   of   civil   litigation   would



certainly improve to a great extent.




33.    According   to   the   learned   author,   90%   of   our   court   time



and   resources   are   consumed   in   attending   to   uncalled   for



litigation,   which   is   created   only   because   our   current



procedures and practices hold out an incentive for the wrong-



doer.     Those   involved   receive   less   than   full   justice   and   there



are many more in the country, in fact, a greater number than



those   involved   who   suffer   injustice   because   they   have   little



access to justice, in fact, lack of awareness and confidence in



the justice system.





                                                                               2


34.    According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled for



litigation   gets   encouragement   because   our   courts   do   not



impose   realistic   costs.     The   parties  raise   unwarranted   claims



and   defences   and   also   adopt   obstructionist   and   delaying



tactics   because   the   courts   do   not   impose   actual   or   realistic



costs.   Ordinarily,   the   successful   party   usually   remains



uncompensated   in   our   courts   and   that   operates   as   the   main



motivating   factor   for   unscrupulous   litigants.     Unless   the



courts,   by   appropriate   orders   or   directions   remove   the   cause



for   motivation   or   the   incentives,   uncalled   for   litigation   will



continue   to   accrue,   and   there   will   be   expansion   and



obstruction of the litigation.   Court time and resources will be



consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied.




35.    According   to   the   learned   author   lesser   the   court's



attention   towards   full   restitution   and   realistic   costs,   which



translates as profit for the wrongdoer, the greater would be the



generation   of   uncalled   for   litigation   and   exercise   of   skills   for



achieving   delays   by   impurity   in   presentation   and   deployment



of obstructive tactics.





                                                                               2


36.    According to him the cost (risk) - benefit ratio is directly



dependent   on  what  costs  and   penalties  will   the   court   impose



on him; and the benefit will come in as  the other `succumbing'



en route and or leaving a profit for him, or even if it is a fight



to   the   end,   the   court   still   leaving   a   profit   with   him   as



unrestituted gains or unassessed short levied costs.  Litigation



perception   of   the   probability   of   the   other   party   getting   tired



and   succumbing   to  the   delays   and  settling   with   him  and   the



court  ultimately   awarding  what kind  of  restitution,  costs and



fines against him - paltry or realistic.  This perception ought to



be the real risk evaluation.




37.    According to the learned Amicus Curiae if the appellants



had   the   apprehension   of   imposition   of   realistic   costs   or



restitution,   then   this   litigation   perhaps   would   not   have   been



filed.   According to him, ideally, having lost up to the highest



court   (16.03.2001),   the   appellants   (defendants   in   the   suit)



ought   to   have   vacated   the   premises   and   moved   out   on   their



own,   but   the   appellants   seem   to   have   acted   as   most   parties



do-calculate the cost (risk)-benefit ratio between surrendering




                                                                             2


on   their   own   and   continuing   to   contest   before   the   court.



Procrastinating   litigation   is   common   place   because,   in



practice,   the   courts   are   reluctant   to   order   restitution   and



actual cost incurred by the other side.


Profits for the wrongdoer


38.    According   to the  learned   Amicus  Curiae,   every lease  on



its   expiry,   or   a   license   on   its   revocation   cannot   be   converted



itself into litigation.  Unfortunately, our courts are flooded with



these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrong-



doers in our system.  It is a matter of common knowledge that



domestic   servants,   gardeners,   watchmen,   caretakers   or



security men employed in a premises, whose status is that of a



licensee   indiscriminately   file   suits   for   injunction   not   to   be



dispossessed   by   making   all   kinds   of   averments   and   may   be



even filing a forged document, and then demands a chunk of



money for withdrawing the suit.   It is happening because it is



the   general   impression   that   even   if   ultimately   unauthorized



person   is   thrown   out   of   the   premises   the   court   would   not



ordinarily   punish   the   unauthorized   person   by   awarding





                                                                               2


realistic and actual mesne profits, imposing costs or ordering



prosecution.



39.    It   is   a   matter   of   common   knowledge   that   lakhs   of   flats



and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities



and   metropolitan   cities,   because   owners   are   not   certain   that



even  after   expiry   of  lease  or  licence   period,   the   house,   flat   or



the  apartment  would  be  vacated or  not.    It  takes   decades   for



final   determination   of   the   controversy   and   wrongdoers   are



never adequately punished.  Pragmatic approach of the courts



would partly solve the housing problem of this country.



40.    The   courts   have   to   be   extremely   careful   in   granting   ad-



interim ex-parte injunction.  If injunction has been granted on



the   basis   of   false   pleadings   or   forged   documents,   then   the



concerned   court   must   impose   costs,   grant   realistic   or   actual



mesne profits and/or order prosecution.  This must be done to



discourage   the   dishonest   and   unscrupulous   litigants   from



abusing the judicial system.  In substance, we have to remove



the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer.





                                                                               2


41.    While   granting   ad   interim   ex-parte   injunction   or   stay



order the court must record undertaking  from the plaintiff or



the   petitioner   that   he   will   have   to   pay   mesne   profits   at   the



market   rate   and   costs   in   the   event   of   dismissal   of   interim



application and the suit.




42.    According to the learned Amicus Curiae the court should



have   first   examined   the   pleadings   and   then   not   only   granted



leave   to   amend   but   directed   amendment   of   the   pleadings   so



that   the   parties   were   confined   to   those   pleas   which   still



survived   the  High Court's  decision.    Secondly,   it  should  have



directed   discovery   and   production   of   documents   and   their



admission/denial.     Thirdly,   if   the   civil   judge   on   6.10.2004,



which   was   three   and   a   half   years   after   the   dismissal   of   the



Special   Leave   Petition   on   16.3.2001,   instead   of   framing   the



issues that he did, had, after recording the statements of the



parties   and   partially   hearing   the   matter   should   have   passed



the following order:



       "In   my   prima   facie   view,   your   pleadings   are   not

       sufficient   to   raise   an   issue   for   adverse   possession,

       secondly   how   can   you   contend   adverse   possession

       of   three-fourth   share?   And   thirdly,   your   pleadings




                                                                               2


       and   contentions   before   the   High   Court   had   the

       effect   of   completely   negating   any   claim   to   adverse

       possession. ..."




43.    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.





44.    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.




45.    We   have   carefully   examined   the   written   submissions   of



the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the parties.



We are  clearly  of the  view that unless  we  ensure that wrong-



doers   are   denied   profit   or   undue   benefit   from   the   frivolous




                                                                                3


litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled



for   litigations.     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.




46.    Usually   the   court   should   be   cautious   and   extremely



careful   while   granting   ex-parte   ad   interim   injunctions.     The



better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some



cases   even   dasti   notice,   hear   both   the   parties   and   then   pass



suitable   biparte   orders.     Experience   reveals   that   ex-parte



interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and



getting   them   vacated   or   modified   in   our   existing   judicial



system is a nightmare.   Therefore, as a rule, the court should



grant   interim    injunction   or  stay   order   only   after   hearing   the



defendants   or   the   respondents   and   in   case   the   court   has   to



grant  ex-parte    injunction   in   exceptional   cases   then   while



granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit





                                                                             3


is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have



to   pay   full   restitution,   actual   or   realistic   costs   and  mesne



profits.





47.    If   an   exparte   injunction   order   is   granted,   then   in   that



case   an   endeavour   should   be   made   to   dispose   of   the



application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible,



preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court.





48.    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




                                                                                  3


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.  In Swaran Singh  v.  State of Punjab


(2000) 5 SCC 668  this court was constrained to observe that


perjury has become a way of life in our courts.





49.    It   is   a   typical   example   how   a   litigation   proceeds   and



continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer.




50.    Learned   amicus   articulated   common   man's   general



impression about litigation in following words:



       "Make   any   false   averment,   conceal   any   fact,   raise

       any   plea,   produce   any   false   document,   deny   any

       genuine   document,   it   will   successfully   stall   the

       litigation,   and   in   any   case,   delay   the   matter

       endlessly.     The   other   party   will   be   coerced   into   a

       settlement   which   will   be   profitable   for   me   and   the

       probability   of   the   court   ordering   prosecution   for

       perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident

       while crossing the road."





                                                                                   3


       This court in Swaran Singh  (Supra) observed as under:



              "...  ...  ...Perjury   has also  become  a way  of  life

       in   the   law   courts.     A   trial   Judge   knows   that   the

       witness   is   telling   a   lie   and   is   going   back   on   his

       previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish

       him   or   even   file   a   complaint   against   him.     He   is

       required to sign the complaint himself which deters

       him   from   filing   the   complaint.     Perhaps   law   needs

       amendment   to   clause   (b)   of   Section   340   (3)   of   the

       Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   in   this   respect   as   the

       High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint.

       To   get   rid   of   the   evil   of   perjury,   the   court   should

       resort   to   the   use   of   the   provisions   of   law   as

       contained  in Chapter XXVI  of the Code of Criminal

       Procedure."




51.    In   a   recent   judgment   in   the   case   of  Mahila   Vinod


Kumari v.  State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34 this


court   has   shown   great   concern   about   alarming   proportion   of



perjury cases in our country.




52.    The  main  question   which  arises  for  our  consideration   is



whether  the  prevailing delay in  civil  litigation  can  be curbed?



In   our   considered   opinion   the   existing   system   can   be



drastically   changed   or   improved   if   the   following   steps   are



taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials.





                                                                                   3


A.    Pleadings   are   foundation   of   the   claims   of



      parties.     Civil   litigation   is   largely   based   on



      documents.     It   is   the   bounden   duty   and



      obligation   of   the   trial   judge   to   carefully



      scrutinize,  check  and verify the pleadings  and



      the documents filed by the parties.   This must



      be done immediately after civil suits are filed.




B.    The   Court   should   resort   to   discovery   and



      production   of   documents   and   interrogatories



      at   the   earliest   according   to   the   object   of   the



      Code.  If this exercise is carefully carried out, it



      would   focus   the   controversies   involved   in   the



      case and help the court in arriving at truth of



      the matter and doing substantial justice.




C.    Imposition   of   actual,   realistic   or   proper   costs



      and   or   ordering   prosecution   would   go   a   long



      way in controlling the tendency of introducing



      false   pleadings   and   forged   and   fabricated



      documents   by   the   litigants.     Imposition   of




                                                                         3


      heavy   costs   would   also   control   unnecessary



      adjournments   by   the   parties.       In   appropriate



      cases   the   courts   may   consider   ordering



      prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to



      maintain   purity   and   sanctity   of   judicial



      proceedings.




D.    The  Court  must adopt  realistic and pragmatic



      approach in granting mesne profits.  The Court



      must   carefully   keep   in   view   the   ground



      realities while granting mesne profits.




E.    The   courts   should   be   extremely   careful   and



      cautious   in   granting   ex-parte   ad   interim



      injunctions   or   stay   orders.     Ordinarily   short



      notice   should   be   issued   to   the   defendants   or



      respondents   and  only  after   hearing   concerned



      parties appropriate orders should be passed.




F.    Litigants   who   obtained   ex-parte   ad   interim



      injunction   on   the   strength   of   false   pleadings





                                                                     3


      and   forged   documents   should   be   adequately



      punished.   No one should be allowed to abuse



      the process of the court.




G.    The principle of restitution be fully applied in a



      pragmatic   manner   in   order   to   do   real   and



      substantial justice.




H.    Every   case   emanates   from   a   human   or   a



      commercial problem and the Court must make



      serious   endeavour   to   resolve   the   problem



      within the framework of law and in accordance



      with   the   well   settled   principles   of   law   and



      justice.





I.    If   in   a   given   case,   ex   parte   injunction   is



      granted,  then  the  said application for grant of



      injunction   should   be   disposed   of   on   merits,



      after   hearing   both   sides   as   expeditiously   as



      may be possible on a priority basis and undue



      adjournments should be avoided.




                                                                     3


       J.    At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court



             should   prepare   complete   schedule   and   fix



             dates   for   all   the   stages   of   the   suit,   right   from



             filing         of         the         written         statement         till



             pronouncement   of   judgment   and   the   courts



             should   strictly   adhere   to   the   said   dates   and



             the   said   time   table   as   far   as   possible.     If   any



             interlocutory application is filed then the same



             be   disposed   of   in   between   the   said   dates   of



             hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the



             date   fixed   for   the   main   suit   may   not   be



             disturbed.



       

53.    According   to   us,   these   aforementioned   steps   may   help



the   courts   to   drastically   improve   the   existing   system   of



administration   of   civil   litigation   in   our   Courts.     No   doubt,   it



would   take   some   time   for   the   courts,   litigants   and   the



advocates to follow the aforesaid steps, but once it is observed



across   the   country,   then   prevailing   system   of   adjudication   of



civil courts is bound to improve.





                                                                                              3


54.       While imposing   costs we have to take into consideration



pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the



respondents   had   to   actually   incur  in   contesting   the   litigation



before   different   courts.     We   have   to   also   broadly   take   into



consideration   the   prevalent   fee   structure   of   the   lawyers   and



other   miscellaneous   expenses   which   have   to   be   incurred



towards   drafting   and   filing   of   the   counter   affidavit,



miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee



etc.




55.       The   other   factor   which   should   not   be   forgotten   while



imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents



were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various



courts.   The   appellants   in   the   instant  case   have   harassed   the



respondents   to   the   hilt   for   four   decades   in   a   totally   frivolous



and   dishonest   litigation   in   various   courts.     The   appellants



have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last



40 years.



56.       On   consideration   of   totality   of   the   facts   and



circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the




                                                                                3


well   reasoned   impugned   order/judgment.     These   appeals   are



consequently   dismissed   with   costs,   which   we   quantify   as



Rs.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.



57.    The  appellants are directed to pay the costs imposed  by



this court along with the costs imposed by the High Court to



the respondents within six weeks from today.  



58.    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.



59.    We  make   it  abundantly  clear  that  the  trial  court  should



not  be influenced   by   any  observation  or  finding  arrived   at  by



us   in   dealing   with   these   appeals   as   we   have   not   decided   the



matter on merits of the case.



60.    Before parting with this case we would like to record our



deep   appreciation   for   extremely   valuable   assistance   provided




                                                                              4


by   the   learned  amicus   curiae.     Dr.   Arun   Mohan  did   not  only



provide   valuable   assistance   on   the   questions   of   law   but



inspected   the   entire   record   of   the   trial   court   and   for   the



convenience   of   the   court   filed   the   entire   court   proceedings,



other   relevant   documents,   such   as   the   plaint,   written



statement   and   relevant   judgments.   It   is   extremely   rare   that



such good assistance is provided by the amicus curiae.  In our



considered   view,   learned   amicus   curiae   has   discharged   his



obligation towards the profession in an exemplary manner.





61.    These appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the



aforementioned directions.





                                                     ..........................J.

                                                     (Dalveer Bhandari)





                                                        .......................J.

                                                         (Deepak Verma)


New Delhi

July 4, 2011





                                                                           4