[ Court Doc ]   Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A recent judgment from the Delhi High Court underscores the court's firm stance against repetitive litigation tactics employed to undermine final judicial pronouncements. The case involved a protracted property dispute and an application deemed a transparent abuse of process.

Facts:

The dispute centered on a property in Delhi, with Suresh Bala (and spouse) claiming ownership against Akshem Chand (and family). Suresh Bala initiated civil suit CS 417/2009 seeking eviction of Akshem Chand's family. Lower courts ruled in favor of Suresh Bala, and subsequent appeals by Akshem Chand, culminating at the Supreme Court, were unsuccessful.

The Disputed Application:

Despite the finality established through prior judgments, the applicant, presumably a member of Akshem Chand's family, filed a fresh application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section pertains to sanctioning prosecution for offenses. The application alleged that Suresh Bala procured the property through fabricated documents.

The Court's Reasoning and Order:

The High Court, however, dismissed the application with a scathing critique, deeming it an egregious abuse of process. The court identified several factors underpinning its decision:

• Prior Opportunities to Challenge Documents: The applicant had ample opportunity to contest the document's authenticity during the original lawsuit (CS 417/2009) and subsequent appeals, adhering to the principle of res judicata (matter already decided).
• Express Waiver of Challenge: Notably, during an appeal, the applicant explicitly relinquished the right to contest the case on its merits, signifying a final acceptance of the previous rulings.
• Multiplicity of Proceedings on Settled Issue: This application represented the third attempt to challenge the same issue. The applicant had previously exhausted legal avenues by losing the original lawsuit and a subsequent suit alleging the judgment's fraudulent procurement.

Criticism of Advocate's Conduct:

The court's criticism was particularly pointed due to the applicant's professional standing as a practicing advocate. The court expressed its disapproval of the blatant disregard for established legal principles and the attempt to circumvent final judgments through repetitive litigation. Such tactics were deemed a misuse of valuable court resources and a potential deterrent to the efficient administration of justice.

Consequences and Repercussions:

The application's dismissal was accompanied by a cost order of ?1 lakh, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Additionally, the court barred any review petition until the cost is settled.

Significance of the Judgment:

This judgment serves as a potent reminder of the court's unwavering commitment to upholding the sanctity of final judgments and deterring dilatory tactics aimed at derailing the legal process. The case emphasizes the potential consequences for individuals, particularly legal professionals, who engage in such misconduct.

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908