T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal
& ANR [1977] INSC 201 (14 October 1977)
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION: 1977 AIR 2421 1978 SCR (1) 742 1977
SCC (4) 467
ACT:
Civil Procedure Code (Act V. 1908), section
35A, Order VII, rule 11 and 10-Duties of the court in curbing frivolous and
vexatious cases.
HEADNOTE:
Respondent No. 2 in partnership, with his
minor son the petitioner contested an eviction petition filed by the
landlord-respondent No. 1 in respect of the premises where the partnership firm
was located, and lost it at the trial, appellate and revisional stages. The
High Court gave six months' time to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the
petitioners filed a suit before the Fourth Additional First class Munsif,
Bangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction which has been confirmed
right upto the High Court and resisted by the second respondent throughout was
one obtained by fraud and collusion and sought an injunction against the
execution of the eviction order. During the hearing of the prayer for further
time to vacate the premises filed by respondent No. 2, the learned Judge of the
High Court, taking pity on the tenant persuaded the landlord for giving time
for vacating the premises on the basis that the suit newly and sinisterly filed
by the petitioner would be withdrawn. Another five months' time was granted
accordingly. But, the petitioner instituted another suit before another Munsif
making a carbon copy of the old plaint and obtained an ex-parte injunction which
was, however, got vacated later by the respondent No. 1. An appeal against the
said order having failed, the petitioner managed to get an ex-parte injunction
once over again in revision from the High Court. At the hearing of the
application for vacating the temporary injunction filed by respondent No. 1,
the petitioner submitted that the said learned Judge having decided the earlier
revision case should not hear the petition on the plea of bias referring to an
affidavit filed by him to that effect. But the learned Judge heard the
arguments, went into the merits and dismissed the revision.
Dismissing the, petition for special leave,
the Court,
HELD : (1) If on a meaningful-nor
formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he (Munsif) should exercise his
power under Order VII rule 11, C.P.C.
taking care to see that the ground mentioned
therein fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause
of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the
party searchingly under Chapter X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on
examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be
shot-down at the earliest stage. The penal Code (Chapter XI) is also
resourceful enough to meet such men and must be triggered against them.
In the instant case, the suit pending before
the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore being a flagrant misuse of the mercies of
the law in receiving plaints having no survival value, the court directed the
Trial Court to dispose of it forthwith after giving an immediate hearing of the
parties concerned and to take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the
litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and is altogether groundless,
reminding itself of sec. 35A of the C.P.C. [744 E-G, 745 A] Observation :
The pathology of litigative addition ruins
the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious
tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases. The sharp practice
or legal legerdemain stultifies the court process and makes a decree with
judicial seals brutum fulmen. It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of
justice if counsel screen wholly fradulent and frivolous litigation refusing to
be beguiled by dubious clients and remembering that an advocate is an officer
of justice and its society not to collaborate in shady actions. [743 B, C, 745
B] 743 [The Court expressed its hope that the Bar Council of India Would
activate this obligation.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 4483 of 1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19-7-1977
of the Karnataka High Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 943 of 1977 P. R.
Ramasesh for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by-
KRISHNA IYER, J. The pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this
country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to
launch frivolous and vexatious cases.
Here is an audacious application by a
determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal
against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory application for
injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is
the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decrees
with judicial seals brutum full men. The long arm of the law must throttle
such, litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community
in the judicature is to survive. The contempt power of the Court is meant for
such persons as the present petitioner. We desist from taking action because of
the sweet reasonableness of counsel Sri Ramasesh.
What is the horrendous enterprise of the
petitioner? The learned Judge has, with a touch of personal poignancy, Judicial
sensitivity and anguished anxiety, narrated the sorry story of a long-drawn out
series of legal proceedings revealing how the father of the petitioner contested
an eviction proceeding, lost it, appealed against it, lost again, moved a
revision only to be rebuffed by summary rejection by the High Court. But the
Judge, in his clement jurisdiction gratuitously granted over six months' time
to vacate the premises. After having enjoyed the benefit of this indulgence the
maladroit party moved for further time to vacate. AR these proceedings were
being carried on by the 2nd respondent who was the father of the petitioner.
Finding that the court's generosity had been
exploited to the full, the 2nd respondent and the petitioner, his son, set upon
a clever adventure by abuse of the process of the court. The petitioner filed a
suit before the Fourth Additional First Class Munsif, Bangalore, for a
declaration that the order of eviction, which had been confirmed right up to
the High Court and resisted by the 2nd respondent throughout, was one obtained
by 'fraud and collusion'. He sought an injunction against the execution of the
eviction order. When this fact was brought to the notice of the High Court,
during the hearing of the prayer for further time: to vacate, instead of
frowning upon the fraudulent stroke, the learned judge took pity on the tenant
and persuaded the landlord to give more time for vacating the premises on the
basis that the suit newly and sinisterly filed would be.
withdrawn by the petitioner. Gaining time by
another five months on this score, the father and son belied the hope of the
learned judge who thought that the litigative skirmishes would come to an end,
but hope can be dupe when the customer concerned is a crook.
744 The next chapter in the litigative
acrobatics of the petitioner and father soon followed since they were
determined to dupe and defy the process of the court to cling on to the shop.
The trick they adopted was to institute another suit before another Munsif
making a carbon copy as it were of the old plaint and playing upon the likely
gullibility of the new Munsif to grant an exparte injunction. The 1st
respondent entered appearance and expose the, hoax played upon the court by the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Thereupon the Munsif vacated the order of
injunction he had already granted. As appeal was carried without success.
Undaunted by all these defeats the petitioner came to the High Court in
revision and managed to get an injunction over again. The 1st respondent
promptly applied for vacating the temporary injunction and when the petition
came up for hearing before Mr. justice Venkataramayya, counsel for the
petitioner submitted that he should not hear the case, the pretext put forward
being that the petitioner had cutely mentioned the name of the judge in the
affidavit while describing the prior proceedings. The unhappy Judge, who had
done all he could to help the tenant by persuading the landlord, found himself
badly betrayed.
He adjourned the case to the next day. The
torment he underwent is obvious from his own order where he stated :
"I spent a sleepless night
yesterday." Luckily, he stabilised himself the next day and heard arguments
without yielding to the bullying tactics of the petitioner and impropriety of
his advocate. He went into the merits and dismissed the revision. Of course,
these fruitless proceedings in the High Court did not deter the petitioner from
daring to move this Court for special leave to appeal.
We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court
repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found
in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now,
pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the
mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that
if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious,
and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should
exercise his power under Or. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the
ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by
examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the
answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively
on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be
shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful
enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In this case, the
learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is dangerous to be too good." The
trial court in this case will remind itself of s. 35-A C.P.C. and take
deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious
motives and altogether groundless. In any view, that suit 745 has no survival
value and should be disposed of forthwith after giving an immediate hearing to
the parties concerned.
We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon
the learned Judge of the High-Court by a callous party. We more than regret the
circumstance that the party concerned has been able to prevail upon one lawyer
or the other to present to the court a case which was disingenuous or worse. It
may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly
fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients.
And remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society
not to collaborate in shady actions. The Bar Council of India, we hope will
activate this obligation. We are constrained to make these observations and
hope that the co-operation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming to the Bench
for spending judicial time on worthwhile disputes and avoiding the distraction of
sham litigation such as the one we are disposing of. Another moral of this
unrighteous chain litigation is the gullible grant of ex parte orders tempts
gamblers in litigation into easy courts. A judge who succumbs to ex parte
pressure in unmerited cases helps devalue the judicial process. We must
appreciate Shri Ramasesh for his young candour and correct advocacy.
S.R. Petition dismissed.
Back
