Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., imposed Rs 1 lakh cost on an advocate who on the issue of the documents, in relation to the property being forged and fabricated, had sought to revive the suit the third time by means of the present application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
Background
Suresh Bala and her husband claimed to be absolute owners of a property at Shahdara, Delhi, in which they allowed Appellant 1 and his family to stay as licensees. The licence having been terminated, and Appellant 1 failing to vacate the suit property, Suresh Bala and her husband thus instituted a suit, seeking a decree of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits against Appellant 1 and his family apropos the suit property. The suit was decreed in favour of Suresh Bala and her husband by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (‘ASCJ’) vide a judgment dated 4-7-2012.
First round of litigation
Appellant 2 challenged the judgment of the ASCJ before the Additional District Judge (‘ADJ’), which was later dismissed by judgment dated 15-4-2014. The said judgment dated 15-4-2014 of the ADJ was carried further by Appellant 2 in second appeal to this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Appellant 2 stated that they were not pressing the appeal on merits but sought a year’s time to vacate the suit premises. This court, vide order dated 8-7-2014, granted time till 30-6-2015 to vacate the suit property subject to filing of an undertaking to that effect. Later, instead of complying with the statement, Appellant 2 filed Review Petition seeking review of the order dated 8-7-2014. By order dated 19-8-2014, this Court dismissed the Review Petition.
Second round of litigation
Appellant 2 proceeded to challenge the order dated 8-7-2014 passed by this Court before the Supreme Court by way of SLP, which was later disposed of. Thereafter, Appellant 2 instituted a second suit before the ASCJ, for a declaration that the judgment dated 4-7-2012 was null and void, having been obtained on fraud. The ASCJ dismissed the suit, which was later challenged before the ADJ. The ADJ, therefore, dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs 40,000. Subsequently, vide order dated 10-2-2023, the costs were waived by the ADJ. The decision of the ADJ was carried further in appeal to this Court. By judgment dated 10-10-2023, this Court found the appeal to be vexatious and expressed its concurrence with the view of the ASCJ and the ADJ that the suit was a clear abuse of process of the Court. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000. Appellant 2 thereafter filed a review petition which was later dismissed.
Third round of litigation
Undaunted at having failed time after time, before every Court from the ASCJ to the Supreme Court, Appellant 2 indefatigable as ever, instituted an application under Section 340 of the CrPC read with Section 195 of the Penal Code, 1860, seeking institution of criminal proceedings against respondents for having obtained the judgment dated 4-7-2012 of the ASCJ by fraud.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the suit in the second round of litigation was rightly dismissed by the ASCJ as amounting to abuse of process. The Court noted that the issue of the documents dated 18-3-2009 being forged and fabricated had now been sought to be resuscitated a third time by means of the present application under Section 340 of the CrPC.
The Court stated that Appellant 2 was a practicing advocate, and this Court could not believe that Appellant 2 was unaware of the law. It was clearly in full knowledge and consciousness of what he was doing, and how he was abusing the legal process with impunity, that Appellant 2 had filed the present application.
The Court opined that when the legal process was abused by members of the legal fraternity, who were supposed to be its protectors and preservers, the Court must take an extremely stern view of the matter. This Court had to spend almost 40 minutes hearing the arguments of Appellant 2 and had to spend another half an hour dictating the present order. The Court also opined that it was not for this Court to divine the motives of Appellant 2 in acting that he has. The Court, however, had to ensure that such misadventures and transparent attempts at abusing the legal process were nipped in the bud, so that other such trigger-happy litigants were deterred from committing similar misdemeanours.
Thus, the Court dismissed the present application with costs of Rs 1 lakh to be deposited by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC), with the Registry.
[Late Akshem Chand v. Suresh Bala, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1880, decided on 14-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Swadesh Kumar, Appellant 2 in person
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
