Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the records of the case.
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that a writ be issued in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.12.2011 passed in SCC Suit No.94 of 2010 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Lucknow, further prayer is that the order for rejection of application for impleadment be also quashed which has been passed on 16.03.2012, another prayer is for quashing of the orders dated 28.05.2012 and 7.8.2012.
Relevant facts are that the petitioner is defendant in SCC Suit No.94 of 2010 which has been filed against him by respondent no.2 and is being heard by respondent no.1.
The defendant/petitioner filed written statement on 4.5.2011 but did not deposit any amount of rent, damages for use and occupation, court fees, counsels' fees or interest till date. Several dates have been fixed by the learned Trial Court but no amount has been deposited by the defendant/petitioner.
The landlord/respondent no.2 has specifically stated in para no.6 of the counter affidavit that Rs.4,23,500/- is due as against the tenant as on today. The defence of the petitioner was struck of vide order dated 20.12.2011 but he did not prefer any revision nor challenged the order anywhere. This order has attained finality between the parties. Now at the final stage he has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash all the proceedings of the learned Trial Court in one stroke. The respondent no.2 has filed his evidence as PW1 on 6.4.2012 but the petitioner has not cross examined the respondent no.2 and continued to get the case adjourned on one pretext or the other exhibiting a growing tendency of the litigants to linger on the eviction proceedings on one pretext or the other.
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."
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 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 breed 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 who has mislead the Court in passing an order in its favour, is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.
In view of the discussions as made above, the petitioner is unnecessarily dragging the landlord into this controversy and getting the disposal of case delayed by hook or by crook. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgments passed by this Court in Pyare Lal v. District Judge, Lucknow and others reported in 2010 (2) ARC 260 and Mahesh Kumar v. Shibbo Singh & anr, reported in 2008 (1) ARC 436, which are of no help.
Under these circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is, hereby, dismissed with special cost of Rs.25,000/-. However, the learned Trial Court may exercise its discretion liberally, if the petitioner deposits entire amount of Rs.4,23,500/-, due as against him and the cost of Rs.25,000/- on the date fixed before the learned Trial Court and may allow him to cross examine PW1 but, shall not adjourn the case so as to delay its disposal.
Order Date :- 22.8.2012 Ram.