# Vipul Bhatia v. Prem Kumar

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1227
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-09
- **Bench:** Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vipul-bhatia-v-prem-kumar-42379
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Act-Revision
against order of striking out of defenceinspite
of
repeated
opportunity-non
compliance by revisionist for seeking
benefit under Section 20 (4)-instead of
depositing
entire
amount
of
rent,
damages and other expenses on first
date
of
hearing-moved
frivolous
application about payment of earnest
money of Rs. 4 lac and sale transactionwithout any registered deed-only for
purpose
to
continue
the
illegal
possession
by
hook
or
crook-which
resulted to impugned striking out of the
defence-present revision is nothing but
an attempt to dragged other party on
frivolous and fictitious litigation-revision
dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000.

Held: Para-9

The learned trial Court has rightly struck
off
the
defence
of
the
defendantrevisionist. This revision 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.
The history of this litigation shows
nothing but cussedness and lack of bona
fides on the part of the defendantrevisionist.
This
is
distressing
and
deserves to be deprecated by imposition
of exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- on the
revisionist. This is not a mere revision,
but an attempt of the tenant to protract
the litigation by raising frivolous and
fictitious contention. This is nothing but
another
chapter
in
the
litigative
acrobatics of the revisionist, who has
determined to dupe and defy the process
of the Court to cling on to the apartment.
The trick he (defendant-revisionist) has
adopted deserves to be nipped in the
bud.
Case Law discussed:
(2011) 8 SCC 249; 2000 SCFBRC 321

## Text

3 All] Vipul Bhatia V. Prem Kumar
1227
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

Civil Revision No. - 102 of 2012

Vipul Bhatia

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Prem Kumar

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
SriRahul Agnihotri

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.N.Tiwari

Small
Causes
Courts
Act-Revision
against order of striking out of defenceinspite
of
repeated
opportunity-non
compliance by revisionist for seeking
benefit under Section 20 (4)-instead of
depositing
entire
amount
of
rent,
damages and other expenses on first
date
of
hearing-moved
frivolous
application about payment of earnest
money of Rs. 4 lac and sale transactionwithout any registered deed-only for
purpose
to
continue
the
illegal
possession
by
hook
or
crook-which
resulted to impugned striking out of the
defence-present revision is nothing but
an attempt to dragged other party on
frivolous and fictitious litigation-revision
dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000.

Held: Para-9

The learned trial Court has rightly struck
off
the
defence
of
the
defendantrevisionist. This revision 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.
The history of this litigation shows
nothing but cussedness and lack of bona
fides on the part of the defendantrevisionist.
This
is
distressing
and
deserves to be deprecated by imposition
of exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- on the
revisionist. This is not a mere revision,
but an attempt of the tenant to protract
the litigation by raising frivolous and
fictitious contention. This is nothing but
another
chapter
in
the
litigative
acrobatics of the revisionist, who has
determined to dupe and defy the process
of the Court to cling on to the apartment.
The trick he (defendant-revisionist) has
adopted deserves to be nipped in the
bud.
Case Law discussed:
(2011) 8 SCC 249; 2000 SCFBRC 321

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman
Siddiqi, J.)

1. This revision has been preferred
by the revisionist-defendant against the
judgment and order dated 23.08.2012,
passed
by
learned
Special
Judge
(Ayodhya Prakran)/Additional District
Judge, Lucknow in SCC suit no.50 of
2011, by which the defence of the
defendant/tenant/revisionist
has
been
struck off in compliance of provision
contained under Order XV, Rule 5 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The plaintiff-respondent has put
in appearance and filed counter affidavit,
which is taken on record. No rejoinder
affidavit was sought for by the revisionistdefendant.

3. I have heard both learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
records.

4. The brief facts, relevant for the
purposes of deciding this revision, are that
the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit (SCC)
for recovery of arrears of rent, damages
for use and occupation and for eviction.
The notices were issued to the defendant-
1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
revisionist, which were sufficiently served
upon him on 30.07.2011. The learned trial
Court held service of notice sufficient
upon the defendant-revisionist vide order
dated 09.11.2011 and the defendantrevisionist was required to file written
statement
within
fifteen
days.
The
defendant did not file any written
statement, hence the suit was directed to
proceed ex-parte against him vide order
dated 01.12.2011. The defendant, then,
put
in
appearance
and
moved
an
application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, which was
allowed and the order dated 01.12.2011 to
proceed ex-parte against the defendantrevisionist was set aside on 12.01.2012.
The defendant filed his written statement
on
21.02.2012.
The
points
of
determination were determined and the
suit was fixed for 13.03.2012 for final
hearing. The defendant did not deposit
any amount of rent, taxes etc. in
compliance of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act
No.13 of 1972, nor made any deposit as
required under Order XV, Rule 5 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The plaintiff-respondent moved
an application 29-C before the learned
trial Court supported with an affidavit
paper no.30-C. The defendant-revisionist
filed objection paper no.36-C and took a
plea that he has entered into an agreement
with the plaintiff-respondent to purchase
the tenanted premises for Rs.10,00,000/-
(ten lac) and the plaintiff-respondent has
received Rs.4,00,000/- (four lac) from the
defendant. But neither the plaintiff
executed the sale deed, nor did refund the
earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/- lacs. The
poor plaintiff filed his statement of
account of the Bank, but the defendant did
not file any documentary evidence to even
prima facie establish that there was any
agreement between the parties regarding
sale and purchase of the disputed
premises.

6. The learned trial Court has
specifically mentioned that the defendantrevisionist did not make any payment in
compliance of the provision contained in
Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.
An agreement to sell must necessarily be
registered and reduced to writing; such
heavy transaction cannot take pleas orally.
An agreement to sell for Rs.10,00,000/-
lacs and giving of Rs.4,00,000/- lacs, as
earnest money, is nothing but a fraud on
the part of the defendant-revisionist.

7. It was correctly argued by learned
counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that
his client (respondent) is residing at
Kolkata and he has let out his apartment
to the defendant-revisionist, who is not
paying any rent and is continuing his
occupation in illegal manner and is not
depositing even a single pie before the
learned
Court.
Not
only
this,
the
defendant-revisionist has manufactured
the false story, which is nothing but sort
of a fraud.

"Fraud-avoids
all
judicial
acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal" observed
Chief Justice Edward Coke of England
about three centuries ago.

8. The Courts of law should be
careful enough to see of such diabolical
plans of the mischievous litigants should
not encourage frivolous and cantankerous
litigations
causing
law's
delay
and
bringing bad name to the judicial system.
The
dispute
being
raised
by
the
defendant-revisionist has been raised for
the
sole
purpose
of
remaining
in
3 All] Vipul Bhatia V. Prem Kumar
1229
possession
of
the
disputed
accommodation somehow or the other.

9. The learned trial Court has rightly
struck off the defence of the defendantrevisionist. This revision 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.
The history of this litigation shows nothing
but cussedness and lack of bona fides on
the part of the defendant-revisionist. This
is distressing and deserves to be deprecated
by imposition of exemplary costs of
Rs.20,000/- on the revisionist. This is not a
mere revision, but an attempt of the tenant
to protract the litigation by raising
frivolous and fictitious contention. This is
nothing but another chapter in the litigative
acrobatics of the revisionist, who has
determined to dupe and defy the process of
the Court to cling on to the apartment. The
trick he (defendant-revisionist) has adopted
deserves to be nipped in the bud.

10. I have no hesitation in holding
that the tenant-revisionist exhibits the
growing tendency of tenants to dilly delay
the eviction and, thereby, causing an
impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not protect the interest
of the landlords.

11. On the basis of the discussions
made above, the revision deserves to be
dismissed with costs. While imposing
costs, I have to take into consideration
pragmatic realities and be realistic as to
what the plaintiff-respondent had to
actually incur in contesting the litigation
before different courts. This Court is to
also broadly take into consideration, the
prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and
other miscellaneous expenses which have
to be incurred towards drafting and filing
of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous
charges towards typing, photocopying,
court fee etc. These realities were taken
into consideration reasonably by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ramrameshwari
Devi and others Vs. Nirmala Devi and
others, (2011) 8 SCC, 249.

12. In similarly situated cases, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken into
consideration this aspect of the matter; in
Gayatri Devi and others Vs. Shashi Pal
Singh 2005 AIR SCW 2070 and Rajappa
Hanamantha
Ranoji
Vs.
Mahadev
Channabasappa
and
others
2000
SCFBRC 321, and imposed the costs upon
the litigant, who has dragged the other
party
to
different
Courts,
due
to
malpractices.

13.

Some
cantankerous
and
unscrupulous litigants, on one ground or
the other, do not permit the Courts to
proceed further in the matter, therefore, in
order to curb uncalled for and frivolous
litigation, the Courts have to ensure that
there is no incentive or motive for uncalled
for litigation. The credibility of the entire
judiciary is at stake unless effective
remedial steps are taken without further
loss of time.

14. In the result, the revision is
accordingly
dismissed
with
cost
of
Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) payable to
the landlord, which shall be paid/deposited
before the learned trial Court on the next
date of hearing, failing which the learned
trial Court shall get it realized as arrears of
land revenue. The impugned order is
confirmed.
---------
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

SECOND APPEAL No. - 262 of 2012

Km. Reshma Khatoon
...Petitioner
Versus
Gufran Ahmad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Sri M. Waris Faroqi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Adnan Ahmad

Code
of
Civil
Procedure-Section-100Second Appeal-Substantial Question of
law-what
is
?-explained-revocation
of
licence-established from the findings of
Court below-no substantial question of law
involves-can not be interfered in Second
Appeal.

Held: Para 9 and 10

Admittedly, ancestors of the plaintiff were
jamindars of the area and not only the
disputed
premises
but
the
entire
surrounding
areas
are
still
in
the
ownership and possession of the plaintiff
which is evident from the site plan
prepared by the Commissioner, which is
mentioned in the decree sheet.

A detailed hearing and perusal of the
judgment and orders of both the Courts
below made it abundantly clear that no
substantial question of law is involved in
this appeal. Even appreciation of evidence
by the two Courts below has not been
assailed before this Court.
Case law discussed:
RSA No. 3166 of 2007 (O&M) 1; 2005 (23) LCD
466; 2006 (3) SCC 224; A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1314;
(2005) 7 S.C.C. 60; A.I.R. 1947 PC 19; (2011) 1
S.C.C. 673; Union of India Vs. Ibrahim & Another
in Civil Appeal No.1374 of 2008, decided on July
17, 2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman
Siddiqi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the records.

2. This second appeal has been
preferred by the appellant against the
judgment and decree dated 03.01.2010, in
original suit no.104 of 2005, by which the
plaintiff's suit for permanent, mandatory
and prohibitory injunction was decreed,
which has been confirmed by the learned
First Appellate Court in regular civil appeal
no.11 of 2010, vide judgment and order
dated 28.08.2012.

3. This is a suit regarding the disputed
premises which is surrounded from all the
sides by the property of the plaintiff, in
which the defendants were granted license
which has since been revoked.

4. In view of Section 54 of Easement
Act, the licence can be expressed or
implied. The provision is reproduced
below:-

"Grant may be express or implied.-
The grant of a license may be express or
implied from the conduct of the grantor,
and an agreement which purports to create
an easement, but is ineffectual for that
purpose, may operate to create a license."

5. Not only this, Section 61 of
Easement Act provides as under:-

"Revocation express or implied.- The
revocation of a license may be express or
implied."