[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY]. INTHECOURTOFSH.ARUNSUKHIJA, ADDITIONALDISTRICTJUDGE-07,(CENTRALDISTRICT) TISHAZARICOURTS,DELHI. RCANO.:24/2017 UNIQUECASEIDNO.:188/2017 INTHEMATTEROF: 1. Ms.[ENTITY], D/oSh.V.D.Tripathi 2. Smt.[ENTITY], W/oSh.V.K.Mishra BothR/o4312,GaliBhaironwali, NaiSarak,Delhi110006. Appellants/Plaintiffs Vs. 1. Sh.S.K.Verma,(SureshKumarVerma), Manager,UnionBankofIndia, MaheshShikshaSansthan, Jodhpur(Rajasthan) ThroughSatishMaheshwari(Attorney). 2. [ENTITY], ThroughitsTrustee Sh.SatishMaheshwari, 1428,Maliwara,Delhi110006 Respondents/Defendants
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
DateofinstitutionoftheAppeal :13/07/2017 DateonwhichJudgmentwasreserved :13/09/2018 DateofJudgment :29/10/2018 :JUDGMENT:
1. The Appellants were Plaintiffs and Respondents were Defendants before the Ld. Trial Court. The Appellants and Respondents are respectively referred in this Judgment according to the original status before the trial court. The Plaintiffs/Appellants are dissatisfied with part of the Judgment and Decree dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Ld. TrialCourtwherebythecostofRs.1,00,000/wasimposedby theLd.TrialCourt.
2. The Plaintiffs/Appellants aggrieved from the part of the Judgmentanddecree,wherebythecostofRs.1,00,000/was imposedbytheLd.TrialCourt,havesoughttosetasidesaid partofJudgmentanddecreedated11/11/2016interaliaon thefollowinggrounds: (A) ThelawwhichtheLd.CivilJudgeisreferringtointhe impugnedjudgmentanddecreedated11/11/16isnot in consonance of apex Court judgments which are bindingprecedents.
(B) The Trial court has failed to appreciate that the Appellantsbonafidelypursuedthecasefor25yearsand didnotmakeanymisrepresentation.
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
(C) TheTrialCourthasfailedtoappreciatethatthesuitwas neitherfalsenorvexatioustoattracttheapplicabilityof Section[SECTION][ACT].
(D) TheTrialCourthasfailedtoconsiderthatthemaximum costs under [SECTION] cannot exceed Rs. 3000/ as perlawevenifitispresumed(butnotbeingadmittedat all)thatthesuitwasfalseandvexatious. (E) TheLd.TrialCourterredtoappreciatethatthefollowing conditions must exist before this Section can be applied:
(a) theclaimordefencemustbefalseorvexatious;
(b) objections must have been taken by the other party that the claim or defence was false to the knowledgeofthepartyraisingit;and
(c) such claim must have been disallowed or withdrawninwholeorinpart.
(F) ThePrinciplesoflawenunciatedbytheLd.CivilJudge inthegivensetofthecasehasnoapplicabilityasthe Ld. Civil Judge has hurriedly passed the impugned judgment and decree ignoring and overlooking the pleadingsandevidencesoftheappellantsbyjumpingto the presumptive conclusions based on his own conjectures and surmises. Thus on this ground the impugned judgment and decree dated 11/11/2016 is liabletobesetaside.
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
The aforesaid grounds are also the arguments of the appellants/plaintiffs.
3. In the aforesaid background, the following points for determinationarisefortheconsiderationofthepresentcase:
i) Can the order under question be termed as perverse, capriciousandarbitrary?
ii) Doestheimpugnedorderrunagainstthelegalframework operatinginandprinciplesenunciatedinthissphere?
iii) Does determination of point for determination no.1 or 2 warrants any indulgence or interference of the present Courtwiththeorderappealedagainst?
iv)Whatorder?
ARGUMENTSOFRESPONDENTS
1. Thatbrieffactsofthecaseareasfollows;ShriSunderLalMa heshwari created a Trust namely "Trust Mandir Shri [ENTITY] wasdulyregisteredbeforetheSubRegistrar,Delhi. Afterexe cution of the above Trust the properties No.1432 to 1436, Maliwara,Delhi110006,andpropertyNo.4312,GaliBhairon Wali,NaiSarak,Delhi110006,vestedinthesaidTrust"Trust MandirShriRamChanderJi"andTrustbecametheownerof saidproperties.Thus,after01.04.1967,ShriSunderLalMa heshwarileftwithnoright,titleorinterestintheproperties No.1432 to 1436, Maliwara, Delhi110006, and property No.4312,GaliBhaironWali,NaiSarak,Delhi110006.
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
2. The father of the Appellants Late Shri [ENTITY] wasalsoatenantinthepropertyonthegroundfloorofthe property No.4312, Gali Bhairon Wali, [ENTITY], Delhi [ENTITY] collecttherentbeingthekadarofthepropertyandissuerent receiptfortherentreceivedbyhim.AfterthedeathofLate ShriVidhyaDharTripathihisdaughterKumariGayatriTri pathiandhissonShriMadhoPershadbecametenantinthe GroundfloorofthepropertyNo.4312,GaliBhaironWali,[ENTITY],Delhi110006.
3. That theAppellantsstartedclaimingthemselvestobeowner of the property No.4312, Gali Bhairon Wali, Jogiwara, [ENTITY], Delhi110006 on the basis of documents Will, GPA, Agreementtosell,ReceiptandAffidavitalldated27.04.1995 allegedtobeexecutedbyShriSunderLalMaheshwariasa soletrusteeof"BaluKesriMandirofShriMaharajRamand [ENTITY] Sri [ENTITY]"
trust.
4. Admittedly,thereisnotevenasinglepieceofdocumenton recordinfavourofShriSunderLalMaheshwaritoshowthat hewasthesoletrusteeof"BaluKesriMandirofShriMaharaj Ram and [ENTITY] Sri [ENTITY] in the said Trust or any such trust exists. The Appellants havealsonotprovedonrecordthattheentireconsideration [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
amounthadbeenpaid.AssuchthelearnedtrialCourtdis missedthesuitvideimpugnedorder.
5. TheAppellantsfiledvarioussuitsondifferenttenantsfordec laration etc. for declaring themselves to be owners of the premises No.4312, Gali Bhairon Wali, [ENTITY], Delhi 110006,whichareasfollows: a. Suit No.654/14, titled as Smt. [ENTITY] and Ors. Versus Geeta Dagga and Ors. The said suit was dis missed by the Court of Shri [ENTITY], the thenCivilJudge,videjudgmentdated15.12.2015. The CourtwhiledecidingissueNo.1to4onpage13hadcat egoricallyheldthatthedocumenti.e.agreementtoSell, GPA,Receipt,andWillEx.PW1/2toEx.PW1/6asal legedtobeexecutedinfavouroftherespondentsherein doesnotconfirmanyrighttitleorinterestintheprop erty No.4312, Gali Bhairon Wali, [ENTITY], Delhi 110006.ItisfurtherheldbythelearnedCourtinpara 10,11and13(Pages15,16,17oftheJudgment)ofthe JudgmentthattheownershipofthepropertyNo.4312, GaliBhaironwali,Jogiwara,NaiSarak,Delhi110006is withthe"[ENTITY]"anddefen dants [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have got no right,titleorinterestinthesaidproperty.Para10ofthe saidjudgmentreadasunder: [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
"theplaintiffsgotnoright,titleorinterestinthe suit property as Shri [ENTITY] wasnothavinganytitleorownershipofthesuit property.Theownershipofthesuitpropertywas with "Trust [ENTITY]" and [ENTITY] titleorownershipofthesuitproperty.Theown ership of the suit property was with "Trust MandirShreeRamChandJi"andShriSunder LalMaheshwariwasnotatallentitledtoconfer anyright,titleorinterestinthesuitpropertyto anybodyelse."
SamewasthefindingoftheCourtwhiledecidingissue No.1Aand1Binpara13ofthejudgment.
b. The Appellants herein preferred an appeal against the said judgment dated 15.12.2015 which was registered [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] alsodismissedbytheCourtofMs.[ENTITY],thethen ADJ,Delhi,videjudgmentdated25.07.2016. Whilede cidingtheappealitwasobservedbytheHon'bleAppel late Court in para 9 page No.13 of the judgment has heldthat: "Hence,theargumentthatunderthegivencir cumstances the documents i.e. agreement to Sell, GPA, Receipt, and Will which are Ex. PW1/2toEx.PW1/6arevoidaspersection 20and25ofIndianContractAct,cannotbe all that unfounded more so as the plaintiffs [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
havealsonotprovedonrecordthattheentire considerationamounthadbeenpaid".
EventhelearnedappellantsCourtalsogiveherfinding oneachdocumentinparas10to17ofthejudgmentas under: Itisfurtherheldinparas10,11,12,13and14(pages no.13&14ofjudgment) ofthesaidjudgmentheldthat Agreement to sell, Receipt, General Power of Attorney and Will are void documents and does not confer any rightortitleover[ENTITY]andGeetaDaggaand Property No.4312 vest in the "Trust Mandir Shri [ENTITY] 15.12.2015anddismisstheappeal.
"Agreement to Sell. The Agreement to Sell had been executed by [ENTITY] of ShriMaharajRamand[ENTITY]@TempleSri [ENTITY] through itssoletrusteeShriSunderLalMaheshwari. Theplaintiffneverfiledanysuitforenforcing thesaidAgreementtoSell.
Itissettledprincipaloflawthatanagreement to sell does not confirm any right, title or interestintheproperty.
[ACT] Agreement to sell required compulsory registration,buttheplaintiffsdidnotgotthe same registered and even is insufficiently [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
stamped, as such the same cannot be enforcedandcannotbereadinevidence.
Receipt. There are number of cuttings on Receipt. PWl has identified the signature of Sh.[ENTITY] onthecuttingsandassuchdocumenthasnot beenprovedasperlawandcannotbereadin evidence as the plaintiff did not recognised thesignaturesonthelineswrittenbyhandon thesaidreceipt.Thepaymentasshowninthe receipt alleged to be given to [ENTITY] have also failed to prove that the alleged cheque issued by them to Shri [ENTITY] had been duly encashed. Even otherwisealso,asnoconsiderationhasbeen paidbytheplaintiffsandtheallegedsaleis invalidbeingwithoutanyconsideration.The entireallegedtransactionisasham.
GPA. It is further submitted that a careful perusaloftheGPArevealsthattheGPAEX PW 1/5 had been executed by Shri [ENTITY] not in the capacity of the manager of the allegedTrustanddonotconferanyrightin favouroftheplaintiffs.Evenotherwiseafter the death of the executor of the GPA, GPA cametoanendsandpersoninwhosefavour the GPA had been executed cannot exercise anyrightonthebasisofthesaidGPA.
Will. The will had been executed by Shri [ENTITY] assole trustee and ManagerofBaluKesriMandirofShriMaharaj Ram and [ENTITY]. It is submitted that the [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
ManageroftheTrusthasnopowertoexecute awillwithrespectofthesuitpropertyashe isnottheownerofthesuitpropertyandas such cannot bequeath the trust property throughwill.
TheappellateCourtdealtanddiscussedaboutillegality ofallthedocumentsallegedtobeexecutedinfavourof theappellantsandultimatelydismissedtheappealvide judgmentdated27.07.2018andtheappellantsdidnot preferredanyappeal againstthesaidjudgmentandit attainedfinally.
c. TheAppellantsfiledanothersuitfordeclarationalong withrecoveryagainstShriS.K.Verma,withrespectto the premises No.4312, Gali Bhairon Wali, [ENTITY], Delhi110006, which was registered as [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY]andOrs.Ver sus Shri [ENTITY] and Ors. The said suit was dis missedbytheCourtofShriHarunPratap,thethenCivil Judge, vide Judgment dated 18.10.2016. The Court whiledecidingissueNo.1inpara18page11 hadcate goricallyheldthat: "Hence,theplaintiffshavefailedtoprovethat ShriSunderLalwasthetrusteeofthetrustor any such Trust ever exists or he had any right, title or interest in the property and thereforeallthedocumentsexecutedbyShri [ENTITY] favouroftheplaintiffsdo not [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
confer anylegalrightin favouroftheplain tiffs".TheCourtinpara19,20,21,22had discussed about illegality of the documents i.e.agreementtoSell,GPA,Receipt,andWill Ex.PW1/1toEx.PW1/4.TheCourtinpara
16 (Page no.9), para 23 (page no.14) of the saidjudgmenthadheldthat"afterexecution oftheregisteredTrusti.e.TrustMandirShri [ENTITY], vide Trust Deed dated 01.04.1967 as Ex. DW 1/4 and property No.4312,GaliBhaironWali,NaiSarak,Delhi 110006vestedinthesaidtrustandprimafa cie Shri [ENTITY] was left with no righttitleorinterestinthesaidpropertiesand beingincompetenttoexecutethesedocuments i.e.Ex.PW1/1toPW1/4,hecouldnothave transferredbettertitlethenwhathehad." TheCourtwhiledecidingissueNo.3onpage17,para29 ofthesaidjudgmentheldasunder;
"Inviewoffindingsonthebasisoftheissue asaforesaid,theCourtisconstrainedtoob servethatabundleoflieshasbeenpursued by the plaintiffs before the Court for more than25yearswithoutanybasisforclaiming rightoverthesuitproperty".
Andultimately,dismissedthesuitoftheplaintiffbeing devoid of any merits vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2016.Theplaintiffs(respondentsherein)havenot filedanyappealagainstthesaidjudgmentanddecree anditattainedfinality.
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
d. Thatduringthependencyoftheaforesaidsuitfordecla rationagainstShriS.K.VermatheAppellantsfiledan othersuitforrecoveryofRs.1,07,712.00titledasGaya [ENTITY],whichwasdismissedvideor derdated11.11.2016withcostofRs.1,00,000.00bythe Court of Shri [ENTITY] and the saidjudgmenthasbeenchallengedbytheAppellantson limitedpointofimpositionofcostbytheLearnedTrial Court.Whiledecidingthesaidsuititwasobservedby theLearnedTrialCourtinpara4and6onpage3ofthe orderthat;
"para4(pageno.3):Nevertheless,itisperti nenttomentiononrecordthatthesameissue oftheirallegedtitleinrespectofthesuitprop ertyhasbeenagitatedagainstandagainby the plaintiff before different forums and all such suits havebeen dismissedfor wantof meritsintoto"
"Para 6 (page no.3): Therefore, the present suit inherently based on the alleged owner shipoftheplaintiffsoverthesuitpropertyis clearly barred on account of the well estab lished legal principle of 'Resjudicata'. The Court is further constrained to observe that act of the plaintiff in filing several cases si multaneously for establishing their alleged claim of ownership over the suit property is [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
apparent gross abuse of the process of the Court and the same needs to be dealt strictly."
"para3(pageno.4),:Theclaimoftheplaintiff has been found to be prima facie false and misleadingwhileitisamatterofrecordthat noattempthasbeensparedbytheplaintiffs toestablishsuchfalseclaiminrespectofthe suitpropertyinitiatingseverallitigations."
"para2(pageno.7):inviewoftheaforesaid observationsmadebytheHon'bleApexCourt and in the background of the facts and cir cumstances of the present suit, the Court is leftwithnodoubtthatexemplarycostsneed tobeimposedupontheplaintiffinthepresent suchunscrupulouslitigants".
"Page 7, para 3: Hence, the present suit is hereby dismissed being barred by resjudi cata and even devoid of merits alongwith costsofRs.1Lakh(outofwhich50,000.00 bepaidinArmyWelfareFundBattle,Casuali ties, Syndicate Bank, South Block Branch, NewDelhiIFSCCodesynb0009055)with ac count number 90552010165915 and Rs.50,000.00bepaidtothedefendants)as compensationbytheplaintiff".
6. AfterdismissalofthreesuitsandoneappealAppellantsdid notpreferanyappealagainstthesaidjudgments.
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
7. That"[ENTITY]'filedoneslumpeti tionagainstpetitionerNo.1andShriMadhoPrasadwhobe cametenantsafterthedeathoftheirfatherinthetenanted premisesandthesaidSlumPetitionwasallowedbytheCom petentAuthoritySlum,Delhivideorderdated25.07.2017.
8. The above mentioned judgments are sufficient to show the malafide conductand malafide intentions of the Appellants. As such, the present petition is liable to be dismissed with furtherheavycost.
9. TheAppellantshavefiledthepresentpetitionclaimingthem selvestobethelandlordoftherespondentsandassuchare tryingtoobtainanevictionorderofthepropertybyplaying fraudupontheCourtasinthepreviousproceedingtheywere seekingdeclarationfromtheCourttodeclarethemasland lordoftherespondents.Thesaidissuehasbeendealtinde tailby4CivilCourtsandtheirfindingandviewcameagainst the Appellants in the form of above mentioned judgments whichhaveattainedfinality.
10. ThattheaboveactoftheAppellantsarehighlymisconceived, malafide,mischievous,illegalandisnottenableinlaw.
11. Thatinviewofsubmissionsmadehereinabove,thepresent appealfiledbytheappellants/plaintiffscannotproceedfur therandisliabletobedismissed.
FINDINGSOFTHECOURT [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
TheLd.CounseloftheAppellantshasalsoreliedupon theParasNo.6and8ofthejudgmentAshokKumarMittalVRam KumarGuptaandAnr.(2009)2SCC656inordertobuttressthe groundsofappealaswellashisarguments: "6. One view has been that the provisions of sections35and[SECTION][ACT]donotinanywayaffect the wide discretion vested in by High Court in exerciseofitsinherentpowertoawardcostsinthe interests of justice in appropriate civil cases. The moresoundviewhoweveristhatthoughawardof costs is within the discretion of the court, it is subjecttosuchconditionsandlimitationsasmay beprescribedandsubjecttotheprovisionsofany lawforthetimebeinginforce;andwheretheissue isgovernedandregulatedbysections35and[SECTION] of the Code, there is no question of exercising inherentpowercontrarytothespecificprovisionsof the Code. Further, the provisions of [SECTION] seemstosuggestthatevenwhereasuitorlitigation isvexatious,theouterlimitofexemplarycoststhat canbeawarded,inadditiontoregularcosts,shall not exceed Rs.3000/. It is also to be noted that huge costs of the order of Rs. Fifty thousand or Rs.One lakh, are normally awarded only in writ proceedingsandpublicinterestlitigations,andnot incivillitigationtowhichsections35and[SECTION]are applicable.Theprinciplesandpracticesrelatingto levyofcostsinadministrativelawmatterscannot be imported mechanically in relation to civil litigationgovernedbytheCode."
"8. We do not however propose to examine or decidetheaboveissueshere,excepttoobservethat courtsshouldnotexceedoroverlookthelimitations [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
placedbytheCodewithreferencetocostsincivil litigation. In so far this case is concerned, even thoughtheorderrelatingtocostsmaynotstrictlybe correct, we do not propose to interfere with the same, in exercise of our jurisdiction under [SECTION]. It is stated that the respondents have already depositedthecosts.Thetimefordepositofcostsby thepetitionerisextendedathisrequestbyamonth fromtoday."
The Ld. Counsel of the Appellants has further relied upontheParasNo.26and28to 32ofthejudgment [ENTITY] "26.SubstantialQuestionofLaw4:
Thefourthsubstantialquestionoflawraisedinthe secondappealisregardingthecompensatorycosts awardedbythetrialCourtunderSection[SECTION]ofthe CodeofCivilProcedure,thatwasconfirmedbythe appellatecourt.Itiswellsettledthatunder[SECTION][ACT],theCourtcanimposecompensatorycosts on the plaintiff or the defendant, when there is vexatiousclaimmadebyapartytothesuit.
"28.ThescopeofSection35and[SECTION]oftheCodeof CivilProcedurehasbeenconsideredbytheHon'ble ApexCourtinSalemAdvocatesBarAssociationv. UnionofIndia,(2005)6SCC344andAshokKumar Mittalv.RamKumarGupta &Anr,(2009)2SCC 656 and [PRECEDENT]
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
"[ENTITY] reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon'ble ApexCourthasheldasfollows: "Judicialnoticecanbetakenofthefactthat manyunscrupulouspartiestakeadvantageof thefactthateitherthecostsarenotawarded or nominal costs are awarded on the unsuccessful party. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In large number of cases, suchanorderispasseddespiteSection35(2) oftheCode.Suchapracticealsoencourages filingoffrivoloussuits.Italsoleadstotaking up of frivolous defences. Further wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. When [SECTION],itis implicitthatthecostshavetobethosewhich arereasonablyincurredbyasuccessfulparty exceptinthosecaseswheretheCourtinits discretionmaydirectotherwisebyrecording reasonsthereof.Thecostshavetobeactual reasonablecostsincludingthecostofthetime spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any otherincidentalcostbesidesthepaymentof thecourt fee,lawyer's fee,typing andother cost in relation to the litigation. It is for the High Courts to examine these aspects and wherever necessary make requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines for the subordinatecourtstofollow."
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
"[PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble SupremeCourthasheldthus: "One view has been that the provisions of [SECTION] affect the wide discretion vested in by High Court in exercise of its inherent power to award costs in the interests of justice in appropriatecivilcases.Themoresoundview however is that though award of costs is withinthediscretionofthecourt,itissubject tosuchconditionsandlimitationsasmaybe prescribed and subject to the provisions of anylawforthetimebeinginforce;andwhere the issue is governed and regulated by Sections35and[SECTION]oftheCode,thereisno questionofexercisinginherentpowercontrary tothespecificprovisionsoftheCode.Further, the provisions of [SECTION] seems to suggestthatevenwhereasuitorlitigationis vexatious,the outerlimit of exemplary costs that can be awarded in addition to regular costs,shallnotexceedRs.3000/.Itisalsoto benotedthathugecostsoftheorderofRs. FiftythousandorRs.Onelakh,arenormally awardedonlyinwritproceedingsandpublic interestlitigations,andnotincivillitigationto which [SECTION] and [SECTION] are applicable. Theprinciplesandpracticesrelatingtolevyof costsinadministrativelawmatterscannotbe imported mechanically in relation to civil litigationgovernedbytheCode."
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
"31. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Courthasheldasfollows: "23. The provision for costs is intended to achievethefollowinggoals:(a)Itshouldact as a deterrent to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations or defences. The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such, as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious, frivolous or speculative claim or defence. (b) Costs should ensure that the provisions of the Code, [ACT] and other laws governing procedure are scrupulously and strictly complied with and thatpartiesdonotadoptdelayingtacticsor mislead the court. (c) Costs should provide adequateindemnitytothesuccessfullitigant for the expenditure incurred by him for the litigation. This necessitates the award of actual costs of litigation as contrasted from nominalorfixedorunrealisticcosts.(d)The provisionforcostsshouldbeanincentivefor each litigant to adopt alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes and arrive at a settlementbeforethetrialcommencesinmost ofthecases.
"32. It has been made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court that compensatory cost could be imposed underSection[SECTION]oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,to makeadeterrenteffectagainstfilingofvexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations. It is the discretionoftheCourttodecreeasuitordismiss the same with costs or without costs, however, it [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Awarding costs should ensure that the provisionsoftheCode,EvidenceActandotherlaws governing procedure are scrupulously and strictly complied with and that the parties do not adopt delayingtacticsormisleadthecourt.Similarly,the court should provide adequate indemnity to the successful litigant for the expenditure incurred by himtowardsthelitigation.Itwasalsoheldinthe [PRECEDENT], (Referred to above) that provisions relating to the compensatory cost ([SECTION] of the Code) in respectoffalseorvexatiousclaimsordefencehas become virtually infructuous or ineffective, on account of inflation. Under the said section, awardingofcompensatorycost,incaseoffalseand vexatious litigation was subject to a ceiling of Rs.3,000/. However, it was made clear that the samerequiresarealisticrevisionkeepinginview, the observations in Salem Advocates Bar Association (Supra). Itisalsorelevant toconsider thatlackofappropriateprovisionsrelatingtocosts has resulted in a steady increase in malicious, vexatious, false, frivolous and speculative suits, apartfromincreaseindocketexplosion,makingthe objectofSection89oftheCodeineffective.Asheld bytheHon'bleApexCourt,anyattempttoreduce the pendency or encourage Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR)processesortostreamlinethecivil justicesystemwillfail,intheabsenceofnotusing theappropriateprovisionsrelatingtocosts,asthe same should discourage maintaining false and vexatiouslitigations."
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
TheRelevantportionoftheLd.TrialCourtJudgment, wherebytheLd.TrialCourtcametoconclusionthatthesuitofthe plaintiffsisfalseandabuseoftheprocessoflaw,isreproducedas under: " Herein,itispertinenttonotethatthe previous suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed by the Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2016.
Furthermore,oneanothersuitfiledbytheplaintiffs inrespectofthesamesuitpropertytitledas"[ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. Geeta Dhagga & Ors." for declaring herself as the landlord of the suit property, also came to be dismissed by the concerned court. Even the appeal filed by the plaintiffsagainstthesaidjudgmentrejectingtheir claim qua the suit property has come to be dismissed by Ld. Appellate Court of Ms. [ENTITY],ADJ,Central,THC,Delhi.
Nevertheless,itisapparentonrecordthatthesame issue of their alleged title in respect of the suit propertyhasbeenagitatedagainandagainbythe plaintiffbeforedifferentforumsandallsuchsuits havebeendismissedforwantofmeritsintoto.
Asfarasthepresentsuitisconcerned,itisevident on record that the issue of ownership of the suit property has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, litigatingunderthesametitle,inaCourtcompetent totryboththesesuitsandthesaidissuehasbeen alreadyheardandfinallydecidedbytheCourt.
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
Therefore,thepresentsuitinherentlybasedonthe alleged ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property is clearly barred on account of the well establishedlegalprinciple'Resjudicata'.TheCourt is further constrained to observe that act of the plaintiffsinfilingseveralcasessimultaneouslyfor establishing their alleged claim of ownership over the suit property is apparent gross abuse of the processoftheCourtandthesameneedstobedealt strictly.
It has already been held by the Court in the previoussuitbetweenthepartiesthatabundleof lieshasbeenpursuedbytheplaintiffsbeforethe Courtformorethan25yearswithoutanybasisfor claiming rightoverthesuitproperty.Theclaimof theplaintiffsbeingtheownersandthelandladies ofthesuitpropertyhasmiserablyfailedtostand uponitsownlegsandtheCourthasnohesitation to hereby held that the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property is devoid of any materialsubstanceorcredibility.
The claim of the plaintiff has been found to be primafaciefalseandmisleadingwhileitisamatter ofrecordthatnoattempthasbeensparedbythe plaintiffstoestablishsuchfalseclaiminrespectof thesuitpropertybyinitiatingseverallitigations.
Insuchcircumstances,theHon'bleSupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have time and again held that heavy cost should be imposed in frivolous cases and in appropriate cases, prosecution be ordered to maintain purity and sanctityofjudicialproceedings. Itisnecessaryto examinetherelevantjudgmentsinthisregard.
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
Falseclaimsanddefences
(i) In [ENTITY] Sequeria Fernandes Vs.ErasmoJackdeSequeria,II(2012)CLT31 (SC)=II(2012)SLT753=2012(3)SCALE550,the Supreme Court held that false claims and defences are serious problems with real estate litigation,predominantlybecauseofeverescalating pricesoftherealestate.TheSupremeCourttherein heldasunder:
84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating pricesoftherealestate.Litigationpertaining tovaluablerealestatepropertiesisdragged onbyunscrupulouslitigantsinthehopethat the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in ourCourts.Ifprogmaticapproachisadopted, thenthisproblemcanbeminimizedtoalarge extent."
Astothequantumofcoststobeimposedby the Courts in such cases, the position has beenmadeclear,
21. In [PRECEDENT] Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and have to be realistic in imposing the [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
costs. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgmentarereproducedhereunder:
"45 Weareclearlyoftheviewthatunless weensurethatwrongdoersaredeniedprofit orunduebenefitsfromthefrivolouslitigation, 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 incentiveormotiveforuncalledforlitigation. It is a matter of common experience that Courtsotherwisescarceandvaluabletimeis consumedormoreappropriatelywastedina largenumberofuncalledforcases."
"52.Themainquestionwhicharisesforour considerationiswhethertheprevailingdelay in civil litigation can be curbed ? In our consideredopiniontheexistingsystemcanbe drastically changed or improved if the followingstepsaretakenbythetrialCourts whiledealingwiththeciviltrials.
C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costsandororderingprosecutionwouldgoa long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Impositionofheavycostswouldalsocontrol unnecessaryadjournmentsbytheparties.In appropriate cases the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicialproceedings "
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
In [PRECEDENT] held that heavy costs and prosecution should be ordered in cases of false claims and defences.TheSupremeCourtheldasunder:
"85. This Court in a recent judgment in [ENTITY] & Ors. (supra) aptly observed at page 266 that unless wrong doers are denied profit from frivolous litigation,itwouldbedifficulttopreventit.In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation,theCourtshavetoensurethatthere is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation.Itisamatterofcommonexperience that Court's otherwise scarce time is consumedormoreappropriatelywastedina large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least be minimized if exemplary cost is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observedatpages267268thatimpositionof actual, realistic or proper costs and/ or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendencyofintroducingfalsepleadingsand forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would alsocontrolunnecessaryadjournmentsbythe parties.InappropriatecasestheCourtsmay consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may be possible to maintain purity and sanctityofjudicialproceedings "
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
Inviewoftheaforesaidobservationsmadebythe Hon'ble Apex Court and in the background of the facts and circumstances of the present suit, the Court is left with no doubt that exemplary costs needtobeimposedupontheplaintiffinthepresent casesoastomaintainthepurityoftheLawandto detersuchunscrupulouslitigants.
Hence,thepresentsuitisherebydismissedbeing barred by resjudicata and even devoid of any merits alongwith costs of Rs.1 lacs (out of which Rs.50,000/bepaidinArmyWelfareFundBattle Casualties, Syndicate Bank, South Block Branch, NewDelhi(IFSCCodeSYNB0009055)withaccount number 90552010165915 and Rs. 50,000/ be paid to the defendants) as compensation by the plaintiff.
FilebeconsignedtoRecordRoomasperrules."
The bare perusal of the aforesaid Judgment it is manifest the Ld. Trial Court has considered everything in detail includinghowthePlaintiffshaveabusetheprocessoftheCourt. TheaforesaidfindingoftheLd.TrialCourtwasnotassailedbythe Plaintiffs/Appellantsandtherefore,thesaidfindingoftheLd.Trial Courthasattainedfinalityforallintentsandpurposes.
I have also profit to refer paras No.2 and 8 of the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT]2. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performanceofanallegedagreementofsaledated [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
15.7.2003. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 19.5.2008. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 29.9.2008.Bothcourtsheldthatpetitionerhadnot approachedthecourtwithcleanhandsandthathe hadfailedtoproveanyconcludedcontractforsale. High Court found that the defendants in the suit werealsonotaboveboardintheirconduct.Itfound thatbothsideswereguiltyofhavingliedonoath anddeservedtobeprosecuted.Onthegroundthat courtswereoverburdenedwithlitigation,theHigh Courtdecidedthatinsteadofdirectingprosecution, heavycostsshouldbeleviedonbothpetitionerand respondents"tobepaidtothestatewhichspends money on providing the judicial infrastructure." It then proceeded to impose exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/onthepetitionerandRs.1,00,000/ on the respondents, and directed that the costs shouldbedepositedwiththeDelhiHighCourtLegal ServicesCommittee.
"11.TheDelhiHighCourtLegalServicesCommittee whenitreceivesthesumofRs.TwoLakhsascosts fromtheparties,shallmakeoverthesametothe state government as directed in para 38 of the impugnedjudgment.Letacopyofthisorderbesent to the Delhi Legal Services Committee, for compliance.
"12. With the above said observations regarding costs,thespecialleavepetitionsaredismissed."
IntheJudgmentrelieduponbytheLd.Counselforthe Appellants,theHon'bleSupremeCourthasnotreversedtheorder oftheCostsofRs.2,00,000/butonlymodifiedtotheextentthat [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
the cost of Rs.2,00,000/ would go into the account of State Government.
IhaveprofittoreferParaNo.13oftheJudgmentof theHon'bleHighCourtpassedinRFANos.45/2018&48/2018 decided on1st February, 2018 titled as [PRECEDENT]: "13.Inviewoftheabove,andmoresobecausein theopinionofthisCourt,thisCourtwasmisledin callingfortrialcourtrecordonthegroundthatno dates were fixed for evidence of the counter claimant and counterclaimant had not led evidence,accordingly,theseappealsaredismissed withcostsofRs.2,50,000/.Costswillbedeposited by the appellant/defendant no.2/counterclaimant with the website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in. Costs are imposed for wasting judicial time as also for abuseofprocessoflawbymisleadingtheCourtby noting that the costs which are imposed under Section35[ACT]arecostswhicharegiveninfavour ofapartytoalitigationandimposingofcostsfor abuseofjudicialprocessandmisleadingtheCourt will be governed by the provision of [SECTION] [ACT] and therefore exercising such powers costs havebeenimposedupontheappellant/defendant no.2/counterclaimant. Costs shall be deposited withinsixweeksfromtodayandaffidavitbefiled of compliance within two weeks thereafter failing whichRegistrywilllistthematterintheCourtfor taking appropriate action against the appellant/defendantno.2/counterclaimant."
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
IhavealsoprofituponparasNo.22and23passedby theHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinthecasetitled [PRECEDENT]: "22.Inviewoftheaforesaiddiscussion,thisappeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,00,000/. Costs shallbepaidbytheappellant/defendantwithina periodofsixweeksfromtoday.Iamentitledtoim poseactualcostbyvirtueofprovisionPunjabHigh CourtRulesandOrders(asapplicabletoDelhi) ChapterVIPartIRule15readwiththejudgment oftheSupremeCourtinthecaseof Ramramesh wari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others(2011)8SCC249.Outofthetotalcostsof Rs.10,00,000/, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ will be paid by the appellant/defendant to the respon dents/plaintiffs including by noting that the trial courthasnotawardedanycostsinfavourofthere spondents/plaintiffsandagainsttheappellant/de fendant.ThebalanceamountofRs.5,00,000/will bedepositedbytheappellant/defendantwiththe website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within a period ofsixweeksfromtoday.
"23.Imaynotethatthepowertoimposecostsin termsofSection35[ACT]isonaccountofcostsin curredbyaparty,butthereisnoprovisionin[ACT] forimpositionofcostsonapersonforinitiatinga completely false litigation and claim, abusing the processoflawandcausinggrosswastageofjudi cial time. With respect to the abuse of judicial process and with respect to filing of false claims sincetheissueisnotcoveredbySection35[ACT], [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
the same would therefore be covered by [SECTION].I have,therefore,imposedcostsofRs.5,00,000/to bedepositedwiththewebsitewww.bharatkeveer. gov.in,inexerciseofinherentpowersofthisCourt [SECTION]."
ThenutshelloftheentireJudgmentsisthatthecosts which are imposed under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] are given in favourofapartytothelitigationandimposingofcostsforabuseof judicialprocessandmisleadingtheCourtwillbegovernedbythe provisionofSection151[ACT]andnotbySection35or[SECTION][ACT]. Moreover, the Ld. Trial Court has relied upon the Judgment of [PRECEDENT]supra)andsaidJudgmentwaspassedbyFullBenchoftheHon'ble Supreme Court. The Judgment relied upon by the Appellants pertainstoDivisionBenchoftheHon'bleSupremeCourt.Evenin thesaidJudgmenttheHon'bleSupremeCourthasconfirmedthe order of cost of Rs.2,00,000/ but only modified regarding its payment to State Government instead of Delhi Legal Services Committee.TheLd.TrialCourthasalsoreliedupontheJudgment [ENTITY] and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others (2011)8SCC249whichalsoformspartoftheaforesaidJudgment of the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] (supra) and also the two Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court whichareof2018,wherebytheHon'bleHighCourthasclearlyheld thecircumstancesinwhichtheheavycostscanbeimposed. The [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
findings of the judgment of [ENTITY] (supra) was approved by the full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgmentofMariaMargardia(supra).
The Ld. Trial Court has considered the abuse of the process of law by the Plaintiffs/Appellants in detail and the said findingsoftheLd.TrialCourthasattainedfinalityforintendsand purposes. The Ld. Trial Court has imposed the cost of Rs.1,00,000/ and out of which Rs.50,000/ was directed to deposited with Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties, Syndicate Bank, South Block Branch, New Delhi and balance Rs.50,000/ wasdirectedtobepaidtotheDefendants/Respondents.
Consideringthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresent case and moreover that the Plaintiffs/Appellants are women, the costwhichwasrequiredtobepaidtothedefendants/respondents is reduced from Rs.50,000/ to Rs.25,000/ and similarly, the direction for deposit of the Cost of Rs.50,000/ in Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties is also reduced from Rs.50,000/ to Rs.25,000/.
The perusal of the Appeal reveals that the Appellants/PlaintiffshavenotpaidtherequisiteCourtfeeamount intheAppealandtheyhaveundertakenatthetimeoffilingoffile todepositthesamebuttheyhavenotdepositedittilldate. The appellants/ plaintiffs have not filed the deficient court fees, therefore, the decision of the present Appeal would be subjectto deposit of the deficient Court Fee within a period of 10 working [ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
daysfromthedateofthisJudgmentbytheappellants/plaintiffs. In case the Appellants/Plaintiffs failto comply the aforesaid part within the aforesaid period, then the Appeal of the Appellants/Plaintiffsshallbedeemedtobedismissed. RELIEF:
Accordingly,inviewofthediscussions,asadumbrated above,Iherebypassthefollowing FINALORDER
1. The Regular Civil Appeal of the Plaintiffs/ Appellantsisherebypartlyallowed.
2. The impugned part of Judgment and decree dated 11/11/2016ismodifiedtothefollowingextent:
(a) The cost which was required to be paid by the plaintiffs/appellantstothedefendants/respondents isreducedfromRs.50,000/toRs.25,000/andthe plaintiffs/appellants would now require to pay the defendants/respondents a sum of Rs.25,000/ insteadof50,000/.
(b) ThecostwhichwasrequiredtobedepositedinArmy WelfareFundBattleCasualtiesisalsoreducedfrom Rs.50,000/ to Rs.25,000/ and the Plaintiffs/ AppellantswouldnowrequiretodeposittheCostin Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties a sum of Rs.25,000/insteadof50,000/.
[ENTITY]&Anr.[ENTITY].
3.Therestofthejudgmentanddecreedated11/11/2016is herebyconfirmed.
4. The aforesaid modification of the part of impugned Judgment and decree dated 11/11/2016 shall be subject to depositing of the deficient Court fee within a periodof10workingdaysfromthedateofthisjudgment bytheAppellants/Plaintiffs. Itismadeclearthatincase theAppellants/PlaintiffsfailtodeposittheCourtfees,as directedhereinabovewithintheaforesaidperiod,thenthe AppealoftheAppellants/Plaintiffsshallbedeemedto be dismissedandtheimpugnedJudgmentanddecreedated 11.11.2016 is confirmed in toto for all intents and purposes.
5. No order as to costs in the present appeal. The partiesshallbeartheirownrespectivecost.
6. ThecopyofthisJudgmentmaykindlybesentforthwithto theLd.TrialCourtalongwiththerecordofTrialCourt. DecreesheetintheAppealbepreparedaccordingly,in termsofthisJudgment.
Announcedintheopencourton this29thDayofOctober,2018.
(ARUNSUKHIJA) ADJ07(Central) TisHazariCourts,Delhi