By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.07.2012, passed by District Judge, Lucknow, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'7' to the writ petition, and further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 (District Judge, Lucknow) to decide SCC Revision No.44 of 2012, on merits, after considering the relevant evidence.
Brief facts of the case, as transcribed in the writ petition are that the petitioner filed application under Order XXI, Rule 97, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of Judge, Small Causes for adjudication of his legal rights, which was registered as misc. case no.22-C of 2012. On 17.05.2012, learned counsel for opposite parties were served with a copy of application, which was taken on record as paper no.C-4. On 18.05.2012, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 19.05.2012. Learned trial Court was pleased to recall its order dated 10.05.2012. The petitioner then preferred S.C.C. Revision no.44 of 2012 before the District Judge, Lucknow, which was dismissed on 10.07.2012 as barred by principles of res-judicata. The opposite parties have filed execution application, which was pending as execution case no.21 of 1999 for execution of ex-parte decree and later on the same has been dismissed on 30.05.2000 against which he preferred a revision, which was also dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional Court, the petitioner preferred writ petition, being writ petition no.59 (R/C) of 2004, before this Court, in which it was held that application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be converted into an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there was no decision on merits. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is legally in possession and paying house tax, water tax and electricity bills and has got licence from Food Department. It is further contended that a second appeal no.107 of 2003 is also pending before this Court. In case no.20 of 2000, which was decided on 15.02.2001, the Additional City Magistrate (II), Lucknow has found that one Pratap Narayan is running a shop, but decree holder has obtained ex-parte decree by playing fraud on the Court against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that since the ex-parte decree is in-executable, therefore, writ petition is being filed.
The above narration, as a whole, shows that the writ petition is ambiguous and nothing can be borne out except the malafide design of the petitioner to continue to occupy the disputed premises exhibiting a general tendency of property grabbing prevalent in the mindset of those having occupied any property otherwise than obtaining ownership by legal means.
During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also filed regular suit no.113 of 2012 before Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the property in question.
The chronology of the case, as borne out of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, show that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are owners of the disputed premises, in which the petitioner claims himself to be in possession as sub-tenant. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed small causes case for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation, which was decreed. The revision filed against it was also dismissed and ultimately writ petition no. 59 (R/C) of 2004 was also filed, which has also been dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.03.2012.
Now, the petitioner has opened another channel; thereby, throwing a challenge to the multi-tier judicial system prevalent in the Country. Prayer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable remedy, which can be entertained only if the petitioner comes with clean hands and does not play hide and seek. A mischievous petition deserves to be thrown at the outset. Thus, the power under this Article cannot be exercised and should not be exercised to help and aid the mischievous litigants so as to overpower the Legal Forums.
In Atmaram Properties v.Federal Motors, reported in 2005 (1) S.C.C. 705, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"The landlord / tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk litigations between in the courts and tribunals. The litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can, thereby, afford to perpetuate the life or litigation and continued in occupation of the premises."
The dispute being raised by the petitioner is only for the purpose of remaining in possession of the disputed accommodation somehow or the other. It appears that the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies and lost from all the Forums. He is making attempts to deny fruits of the property of the landlords, who are opposite party nos.1 and 2.
In Gayatri Devi & ors. v. Shashi Pal Singh, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 2070, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"This appeal demonstrates how a determined and dishonest litigant can interminably drag on litigation to frustrate the results of a judicial determination in favour of the other side.......
On 1.11.1987 the appellant committed perhaps the gravest blunder of her life of letting out the suit property to the respondent-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.1300/-, which subsequently came to be increased to Rs.1500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1990.....
The history of this litigation shows nothing but cussedness and lack of bona fides on the part of the respondent. Apart from his tenacity and determination to prevent the appellants from enjoying the fruits of the decree, there appears to be nothing commendable in the case. Even before us the same arguments of fraud, and that the appellants were not legally owners of the suit property, were pleaded.....
In our view, the conduct of the respondent deserves condemnation which we indicate by imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- on the respondent."
In Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa & ors. Reported in 2000 SCFBRC 321, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also made the following observations:
"It is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants in order to circumvent orders of Courts adopt dubious ways and take recourse to ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation to defeat the orders of Courts. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of and curbed by passing appropriate orders and issuing necessary directions including imposing of exemplary costs. As noticed, despite eviction order having become final nearly a quarter century ago, respondent no.1 still could not enjoy the benefit of the said order and get possession because of the filing of the present suit by the brother of the person who had suffered the eviction order. Under these circumstances, we quantify the costs payable by the appellant to respondent no.1 at Rs.25,000/-."
In view of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, the circumstances of the present case, where the petitioner has lost the whole battle, right from the trial Court to this Court, again started causing obstruction in the execution of the decree by moving application under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and again losing from the revisional stage, he again went on to file regular civil suit and has filed this writ petition, as well, by suppressing the fact that he has already filed a regular civil suit. This is not only a mischief, but a fraud on point of law. This process adopted by the petitioner is a case of sheer abuse of process of the Court. The litigative acrobatics of the petitioner is aimed as his determination to dupe and defy the process of the Court to cling on the disputed premises. He is applying dirty-trick to institute suit upon suit and application upon application with a clear intention to keep the premises occupied, if he obtains any order by slip of an overburdened Court. I have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the Court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is exhibiting a growing tendency of the tenants to dilly delay the eviction and, thereby causing an impression that civil law remedy is time consuming and do not protect the interests of the peaceful and law abiding citizens. This Court is of the considered view that the petition deserves to be thrown out with heavy cost but before proceeding further I may mention here that In Advocate General State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries (1980) (3) SCC 311, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that such repeated filing of writ petition amounts to criminal contempt. In T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decree with judicial seals brutum fulmen. 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."
Later on in Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa & ors, reported in 2000 SCFBRC 321, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants, in order to circumvent orders of the courts adopt dubious ways and take recourse to ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation to defeat the orders of the courts. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of and curbed by passing appropriate orders and issuing necessary directions including imposing or exemplary costs."
In Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar & anr., reported in 2003 AIR SCW 7158, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debators to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system."
In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case has further held as under:
"In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others (2008) 12 SCC 481, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141."
This is the experience of this Court that in last 40 years, a new breed of litigants has cropped up. Those, who belong to this breed, do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new generation of litigants, the Courts have, from time to time evolved new rules and, it is now well established that the litigants, who attempt to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or otherwise. I find force while holding this, by the law laid down in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC, 114 by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P. AIR 1983 S.C. 1015 that a party which has mislead the Court in passing an order in its favour, is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.
On the basis of the discussions made above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with special cost of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to opposite party nos. 1 and 2, either personally or through deposit in the Court of learned District Judge, Lucknow / Court of Small Causes Case, Lucknow where the execution is pending within thirty days, failing which it shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
Order Date :- 07.08.2012.
Rks.