JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, J.
1. This writ petition fourth in succession, two filed by the petitioner Angrej Singh and other two by his family members, challenging the same recovery proceedings is a classic case of abuse of the process of the court. The facts are that the petitioner along with his grandfather Mukhtar Singh took loan of Rs. 2,12,000/- for purchasing a tractor and crop loan of Rs. 45,000/- from the Prathma Bank, Branch Bilaspur, district Rampur in the year 2000. Mukhtar Singh is stated to have died sometimes in 2002. Since the loan was not liquidated recovery proceedings were initiated. Writ petition No. 605 of 2004 was filed by one Smt. Paramjeet Singh mother of the petitioner challenging the recovery proceedings. A counter affidavit was called for from the bank and an interim order was passed to the effect that in case attachment or auction takes place the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition and in case any auction is held it shall not be confirmed till 27.1.2005.
2. Prathma Bank filed a counter affidavit stating therein that no amount has been repaid in the loan account and the copy of the receipt filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition showing a deposit of Rs. 38,100/- has been issued by the State Bank of India and not by the Prathma Bank, After considering the allegations made in the counter affidavit, the court vacated the interim order on 28.1.2004 and issued a show-cause as to why a cost of Rs. 10,000/- be not imposed upon the petitioner. No cause was shown and the matter remained pending.
3. After being unsuccessful a second attempt was made by the petitioner Angrej Singh by filing writ petition no. 4447 of 2004. In this petition a receipt dated 30.1.2002 showing a deposit of Rs. 2,90,000/-by deceased Mukthar Singh in the loan account was, filed as annexure-3. Without disclosing the fact of the first writ petition filed by his mother and misleading the court, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining order dated 11.2.2004 on the strength of undertaking given by him that in case coercive method is stayed, the entire amount shall be deposited within a period of six weeks. Mislead by the receipt and the undertaking given, the court stayed the recovery proceedings for a period of six weeks and permitted the petitioner to deposit the amount within the said period. This order was never complied with.
4. After being unsuccessful in the second writ petition, a third attempt was made by one Harmej Singh the brother of the petitioner Angrej Singh by filing writ petition no. 17736 of 2004. In this petition again the same receipt dated 30.1.2002 showing a deposit of Rs. 2,90,000/- in the loan account was filed. However, the petition was not argued and on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner it was listed for admission. In this case also respondent-bank filed a counter affidavit giving details of the earlier writ petition and also alleging that the receipt is a forged document and no such deposit was ever made. This petition never saw the light of the day and remained pending.
5. After being unsuccessful in three attempts, fourth attempt has been made by the petitioner Angrej Singh by filing present writ, petition challenging the same recovery proceeding. In this petition also the same receipt showing a deposit of Rs. 2,90,000/- on 30.1.2002 has filed as annexure-3 to the writ petition, when the case was taken up on 12.5.2005 the details of earlier three writ petitions were furnished by Sri P.K.Singhal appearing for the respondent-bank. The case was directed to be put up today i.e. 13.5.2005 along with the record of the said writ petitions. .
6. I have perused the record of all the four petitions. The same recovery proceeding has been challenged and surprisingly all the writ petitions were filed through the same counsel namely, Sri Kavindra Narain Sharma. Though initially learned counsel for the petitioner tried to justify filing of successive petitions by raising an argument that every petition is directed against a different notice which constitutes a fresh cause of action hence the petition would not be barred, but on being confronted by the court regarding concealment of earlier petitions and filing forged documents he had no reply. He also failed to justify his own action for failing in his duty to inform the court about earlier writ petitions though he himself was counsel in all the petitions. It appears to be a deliberate act and not a mistake and calls for serious action. However, the counsel has profusely apologised for his conduct. Looking to his tender age in the profession he is being let off with a stern warning to be cautious in future and not to repeat the mistake again.
7. Now coming to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that every writ petition is directed against separate notice which constitutes a fresh cause: of action as such there is no bar in filing the same. On an examination of the record of the writ petitions it transpires that in writ petition no.605 of 2004 attachment notice, alleged to be undated, issued in Z.A. Form 73 has been challenged. In writ petition no. 4447 of 2004 challenge has been made to the auction notice issued in Z.A. Form 74. In writ petition no. 17736 of 2004 again challenge has been made to the attachment notice issued in Z.A. form 73. In the present petition auction notice dated 7.4.2004 in Z.A. Form 74 has been challenged. It is thus clear from the aforesaid fact that different notices challenged in different writ petitions have been issued in pursuance of the same recovery proceedings. Though the relief claimed in the writ petition may be different but the writ petitions are based on the same fact and the recovery notices are in pursuance to the recovery proceedings which is one and the same.
8. Now what is to be examined is whether all the writ petitions are based on the same cause of action. If the cause of action is same subsequent writ petition would be barred. Cause of action is a sum of total facts and circumstances which are required to be proved in order to be entitled to the relief claimed. The relief is separate and distinct from the cause of action. The apex court in the case of Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810 while examining the scope of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has observed as follows :
"In order that a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3), Civil Procedure Code should succeed (he defendant who raises the plea must make out (1) that the second suit 'was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (2) that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; (3) that being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff, without relief obtained from the court, omitted to sue for the relief for which second suit has been filed. From this analysis it would be seen that' the defendant would have to establish primarily and to start with, the precise cause of action upon which the previous suit was filed and that on which the claim in the later suit is based there would be no scope for the application of the bar. No I doubt, a relief which is sought in a plaint could ordinarily be traceable to a particular cause of action but this might, by no means, be the universal rule. As the plea is technically bar it has to be established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of inferential reasoning. It is for this reason that a plea of a bar under Order 2 Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code can be established only if the defendant files in evidence the pleadings in the previous suit and thereby proves to the Court the identity of the cause of action in the two suits. "
9. From the above observation made by the Apex Court it is clear that if it is established that the cause of the two suits are the same the bar would be applicable.
10. In the present case challenge to different recovery notices in different petitions is based on one and the same fact i.e. recovery proceedings were initiated without adjusting the amount deposited in the loan account. Thus in substance, the allegation on which the claim of the petitioner is based and the relief has been claimed is same in all the petitions. All the writ petitions are based on the same facts and the cause of action is same. Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court also prohibits filing of second writ petition on the same facts. In view of the aforesaid, the argument advanced by learned counsel the petitioner lacks merit and is not liable to be accepted.
11. Reference may also be made to decision of the apex court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 88 wherein it has been held that filing of successive writ petition on the same fact is not only against public policy but also amounts to abuse of the process of the court.
12. This takes us to the conduct of the petitioners who are members of the same family. In two writ petitions a counter affidavit has been filed by the bank making specific averments that receipts of deposit are forged and fabricated. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed denying the allegations of the counter affidavit. In writ petition no. 605 of 2004 petitioner was required to show cause why cost of Rs. 10000/- may not be imposed. Even that had no deterrent effect and Angrej Singh, the petitioner in the present petition, filed another writ petition and succeeded in obtaining order from the court by ' concealing the facts and misleading the court. However, instead of complying the same he has dared to file the present writ petition again annexing a forged receipt and concealing the facts. The petitioners appear to be dare devil. Their conduct is such that they are liable to be prosecuted for contempt and perjury.
13. However, looking into the facts and circumstances and in particular their rustic and rural background and the fact that correct legal advise was not given to them dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary cost would be sufficient punishment for their misdeeds.
14. As a result, all the three writ petitions bearing number 38831 of 2005, 605 of 2004 & 17736 of 2004 are dismissed with cost of Rs. 15,000/- on each petitioner of the three petitions. The cost shall be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue.
15. The Registrar General is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Collector, Rampur within a period of three weeks from today for execution and recovery of the amount of cost from the petitioners as arrear of land revenue within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The cost so recovered shall be forwarded by the Collector to this court for being deposited with the Legal Aid Committee. Compliance report to be submitted within four months from today.