# RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS v. NIRMALA DEVI & ORS

- **Citation:** [2011] 8 S.C.R. 992
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-07-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 4912-4913 of 2011
- **Bench:** Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rameshwari-devi-ors-v-nirmala-devi-ors-27883
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Administration of justice -
Civil litigation - Delay in
disposal of civil cases/Uncalled for and frivolous litigation -
C Curbing of - Held: Steps to be taken by trial courts while
dealing with criminal trials - Stated.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Actual or realistic costs - Determination of - Held:
D Pragmatic realities are to be taken into consideration and
courts have to be realistic to what the defendants or the
respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation
before different courts - Prevalent fee structure of the lawyers
and other miscellaneous expenses are to be taken into
E consideration -
It is to be seen that for how long the
defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and
defend the litigation in various courts - On facts, appellants
harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a
totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts -
F
They a/so wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last
40 years - Thus, the appeals are dismissed with costs,
quantified as Rs.2,00,0001- a/ongwith the costs imposed by
the High Court which is Rs. 75,0001-, payable by the
appellants to the respondents.
/
G
Ex-parte ad interim injunctions - When to be granted -
Held: The court should grant interim injunction or stay order
only after hearing the defendants or the respondents - In case
the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases,
H
992
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &
993
ORS.
then it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually
A
dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner would pay full
restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits - If an
ex-parte injunction order is granted, then the court should
dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as
may be possible, as soon as the defendant appears in the
B
court - It should be granted only for a short period - If party
obtains an injunction based on false averments and forged
documents, he should be prosecuted.
Framing of issues - Duty of the court - Held.; Framing
of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation - Due
C
care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by
the Presiding Judge while framing of issues - On facts, the
trial court ought not to have framed an issue on a point which
was finally determined upto this Court -
The same was
exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata -
D
Doctrines/Principles.
'RP' was allotted a house and on humane
considerations of shelte·r, he allowed his brothersappellants to reside with him. The appellants filed a suit E
for partition in the year 1977, which was dismissed.
Thereafter, they filed a Regular First Appeal. During
pendency, 'RP' filed a suit against the appellants for
mandatory injunction to remove them and for recovery
of mesne profits. Meanwhile, 'RP' sold part of his property.
Thereafter, RFA was dismissed. The Special Leave
Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. The suit
for mandatory injunction stood revived. Thereafter,
applications after applications were filed by the
F
, appellants at every stage raising various claims. The
issues were framed. Finally, the High Court dismissed the
G
Civil Miscellaneous Petition which was filed in the year
2010, rendered at the preliminary hearing and imposed
cost of Rs. 75,0001-. The Review Petition filed
thereagainst was also dismissed. Thus, the appellants
filed the instant appeals.
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If the remedial meas!Jres and suggestions
to improve the aspect of delay in disposal of civil cases
are implemented in proper perspective, then the present
8 justice delivery system of civil litigation would certainly
improve to a great extent. [Para 32) (1017-H; 1018-A]
•Justice, Courts and Delays" by Dr. Arun Mohan -
referred to.
C
1.2 90% of the time and resources of the Indian
courts are consumed in attending to uncalled for
litigation, which is created only becaus

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 62,818. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

\
B
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 992
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS.
v.
NIRMALA DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4912-4913 of 2011)
JULY 4, 2011
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Administration of justice -
Civil litigation - Delay in
disposal of civil cases/Uncalled for and frivolous litigation -
C Curbing of - Held: Steps to be taken by trial courts while
dealing with criminal trials - Stated.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Actual or realistic costs - Determination of - Held:
D Pragmatic realities are to be taken into consideration and
courts have to be realistic to what the defendants or the
respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation
before different courts - Prevalent fee structure of the lawyers
and other miscellaneous expenses are to be taken into
E consideration -
It is to be seen that for how long the
defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and
defend the litigation in various courts - On facts, appellants
harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a
totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts -
F
They a/so wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last
40 years - Thus, the appeals are dismissed with costs,
quantified as Rs.2,00,0001- a/ongwith the costs imposed by
the High Court which is Rs. 75,0001-, payable by the
appellants to the respondents.
/
G
Ex-parte ad interim injunctions - When to be granted -
Held: The court should grant interim injunction or stay order
only after hearing the defendants or the respondents - In case
the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases,
H
992
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &
993
ORS.
then it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually
A
dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner would pay full
restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits - If an
ex-parte injunction order is granted, then the court should
dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as
may be possible, as soon as the defendant appears in the
B
court - It should be granted only for a short period - If party
obtains an injunction based on false averments and forged
documents, he should be prosecuted.
Framing of issues - Duty of the court - Held.; Framing
of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation - Due
C
care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by
the Presiding Judge while framing of issues - On facts, the
trial court ought not to have framed an issue on a point which
was finally determined upto this Court -
The same was
exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata -
D
Doctrines/Principles.
'RP' was allotted a house and on humane
considerations of shelte·r, he allowed his brothersappellants to reside with him. The appellants filed a suit E
for partition in the year 1977, which was dismissed.
Thereafter, they filed a Regular First Appeal. During
pendency, 'RP' filed a suit against the appellants for
mandatory injunction to remove them and for recovery
of mesne profits. Meanwhile, 'RP' sold part of his property.
Thereafter, RFA was dismissed. The Special Leave
Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. The suit
for mandatory injunction stood revived. Thereafter,
applications after applications were filed by the
F
, appellants at every stage raising various claims. The
issues were framed. Finally, the High Court dismissed the
G
Civil Miscellaneous Petition which was filed in the year
2010, rendered at the preliminary hearing and imposed
cost of Rs. 75,0001-. The Review Petition filed
thereagainst was also dismissed. Thus, the appellants
filed the instant appeals.
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 If the remedial meas!Jres and suggestions
to improve the aspect of delay in disposal of civil cases
are implemented in proper perspective, then the present
8 justice delivery system of civil litigation would certainly
improve to a great extent. [Para 32) (1017-H; 1018-A]
•Justice, Courts and Delays" by Dr. Arun Mohan -
referred to.
C
1.2 90% of the time and resources of the Indian
courts are consumed in attending to uncalled for
litigation, which is created only because our current
procedures and practices hold out an incentive for the
wrong- doer. Those involved receive less than full justice
o and there are many more in the country, in fact, a greater
number than those involved who suffer injustice
because they have little access to justice, in fact, lack of
awareness and confidence in the justice system. In the
Indian legal system, uncalled for litigation gets
E encouragement because our courts do not impose
realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and
defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying
tactics because the courts do not impose actual or
realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually
remains uncompensated in the courts and that operates
F as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants.
Unless the courts, by appropriate orders or directions
remove the cause for motivation or the incentives,
uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there
will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court
G time and resources will be consumed and justice will be
both delayed and denied. [Paras 33 and 34) (1018-A-F]
1.3 Lesser the court's attention towards full
restitution and realistic costs, which translates as profit
H for the wrongdoer, the greater would be the generation
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &
995
ORS.
of uncalled for litigation and exercise of skills for A
achieving delays by impurity in presentation and
deployment of obstructive tactics. The cost (risk) • benefit
ratio is directly dependent on what costs and penalties
will the court impose on him; and the benefit will come
in as: the other 'succumbing' en route and or leaving a
B
profit for him, or even if it is a fight to the end, the court
still leaving a profit with him as unrestituted gains or
unassessed short levied costs. Litigation perception of
the probability of the other party getting tired and
succumbing to the delays and settling with him and the c
court ultimately awarding what kind of restitution, costs
and fines against him • paltry or realistic. This perception
ought to be the real risk evaluation. [Paras 35, 36] [1018G-H; 1019-A-B]
1.4 If the appellants had the apprehension of D
imposition of realistic costs or restitution, then this
litigation perhaps would not have been filed. Ideally,
having lost up to the highest court (2001), the appellants
(defendants in the suit) ought to have vacated the
premises and moved out on their own, but the appellants
E
seem to have acted as most parties do-calculate the cost
(risk)-benefit ratio between surrendering on their own and
continuing to contest before the court. Procrastinating
litigation is common place because, in practice, the courts
are reluctant to order restitution and actual cost incurred
F
by the other side. [Para 37) [1019-C-D]
1.5 Every lease on its expiry, or a license on its
revocation cannot be converted itself into litigation.
Unfortunately, the courts are flooded with these cases
because there is an inherent profit for the wrong- doers G
in our system. It is a matter of common knowledge that
domestic servants, gardeners, watchmen, caretakers or
security men employed in a premises, whose status is
that of a licensee indiscriminately file suits for injunction
not to be dispossessed by making all kinds of averments H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A and may be even filing a forged document, and then .
demands a chunk, of money for withdrawing the suit. It
is happening because it is the general impression that
even if ultimately unauthorized person is thrown out of
the premises the court would not ordinarily punish the
B unauthorized person by awarding realistic and actual
mesne profits, imposing costs or ordering prosecution.
[Para 38] [1019-E~G; 1020-A]
1.6 It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of
flats and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in
C big cities and metropolitan cities, because owners are not
certain that even after expiry of lease or licence period,
the house, flat or the apartment would be vacated or not.
It takes decades for final determination of the controversy
and wrongdoers are never adequately punished.
D Pragmatic approach of the courts would partly solve the
housing problem of this country. The courts have to be
extremely careful in granting ad-interim ex-parte
injunction. If injunction has been granted on the basis of
false pleadings or forged documents, then the concerned
E ,, court must impose costs, grant realistic or actual mesne
profits and/or order prosecution. This must be done to
discourage the dishonest and unscrupulous litigants
from abusing the judicial system. In substance, the
incentive or profit for the wrongdoer is to be removed.
F While granting ad interim ex-parte injunction or stay order
the court must record undertaking from the plaintiff or the
petitioner that he will have to pay mesne profits at the
market rate and costs in the event of dismissal of interim
application and the suit. [Paras 39, 40 and 41] [1020-B-E]
G
1.7 In the instant case, the court should have first
examined the pleadings and then not only granted leave
to amend but dir~cted amendment of the pleadings so
that the parties were confined to those pleas which still
survived the High Court's decision. Secondly, it should
H have directed discovery and production of documents
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &
997
ORS.
and their admission/denial. Thir~ly, if the civil judge on
A
6.10.2004, which was three and a half years after the
!
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, instead of framing
the issues that he did, had, after recording the statements
of the parties and partially hearing the matter should have
passed the order that the pleadings were not sufficient
B
to raise an issue for adverse possession and that the
pleadings and .contentions before the High Court had the
effect of completely negating any claim to adverse
possession. [Para 42] [1020-F-H; 1021-A-B]
1.8 Framing of issues is a very important stage in the
civil litigation and it is the bounden duty of the court that
due care, caution, diligence and attention must be
bestowed by the Presiding Judge while framing of issues.
c
In the instant case, when the entire question of title had
been determined by the High Court and the Special
D
Leave Petition against that judgment was dismissed by
this Court, thereafter, the trial court ought not to have
framed such an issue on a point which has been finally
determined upto this Court. In any case, the same was
exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata. That
E
clearly demonstrates total non-application of mind.
[Paras 43 and 44] [1021-C-D]
1.9 Unless it is ensured that wrong- doers are denied
profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it
F
would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for
litigations. In order to curb un·called for and frivolous
litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no
incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter
of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and
G
valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted
in a large number of uncalled for cases. [Para 45] [1021E-F]
1.10 Usually the court should be cautious and
extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R
A injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a
short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear
both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders.
Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunction orders
in some cases can create havoc and getting them
B vacated or modified in our exi~ting judicial system is a
nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant
interim injunction or stay order only a~r hearing the
defendants or the respondents and in case the court has
to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then·
c while granting injunction it must record in the order that
if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the
petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic
costs and mesne profits. If an ex-parte injunction order
is granted, then in that case an endeavour should be
0 made to dispose of the application for injunction as
expeditiously as may be possible, preferably as soon as
the defendant appears in the court. [Paras 46 and 47]
[1021-G-H; 1022-A-C]
1.11 It is also a matter of common experience that
E once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or
the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that
injunction continues indefinitely. Th19 other appropriate
order can be to limit the life of the ex-parte injunction or
stay order for a week or so because in such cases the
F usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters
by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex-parte
injunction orders or stay orders may not find
encouragement. The common impression is to be
dispelled that a party by obtaining an injunction based on
G even false averments and forged documents will tire out
the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to
give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a
matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine
objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents
H are filed indiscriminately in the courts because they have
RAMESHWARI OEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &
999
ORS.
hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury
A
by the courts or even pay heavy costs: [Para 48) [1022D-G)
1.12 With regard to the issue of curbing the prevailing
delay in civil litigation, the existing system can be
8
drastically changed or improved if the following steps are
taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials:
A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties.
Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the
bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to C
carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings
and the documents filed by the parties. This must be
done immediately after civil suits are filed.
B. The Court should resort to discovery and
0
production of documents and· interrogatories at the
earliest according to the object of the Code. If this
exercise. is carefully carried out, it would focus the
controversies involved in the case and help the court
in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial
justice.
C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and
or ordering prosecution would go a long way in
E
. controlling the tendency of introducing false
pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by
F
the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also
control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In
appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering
prosecution otherwise it mar not be possible to
maintain purity and sanctity of: judicial proceedings.
G
D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic
approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must
carefully keep in view the ground realities while
granting mesne profits.
H
A
B
c
D
. E
F
G
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 8 S.C.R.
E. The courts should be extremely careful and
cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim Injunctions
or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be
issued to the defendants or respondents and only
after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders .
should be passed.
F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim
injunction on the strength of false pleadings and
forged documents should be adequately punished.
No one should be allowed to abuse the process of
the court.
G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a
pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial
justice.
H. Every case emanates from a human or a
commercial problem and the ~ourt must make
serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the
framework of law and in accordance with the well
settled principles of law and justice .
I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted,
then the said application for grant of injunction
should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both
sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a
priority basis and undue adjournments should be
avoided.
J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court
should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for
all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written
statement till pronouncement of judgment and the
courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and
the said time table as far as possible. If any
interlocutory application is filed then the same be
disposed of in between the said dates of hearings
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1001
ORS.
fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for A
the main suit may not be disturbed.
The aforementioned steps may help the courts to
drastically improve the existing system of administration
of civil litigation in our Courts. No doubt, it would take
B·
some time for the courts, litigants and the advocates to ·
follow the said steps, but once it is observed across the
country, then prevailing system of adjudication of civil
courts is bound to improve. [Para 53) [1023-G-H; 1024-A·
H; 1025-A-H; 1026-A]
1.13 While imposing costs the pragmatic realities are
to be taken into consideration and be realistic what the
defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in
contesting the litigation before different courts. The
c
. prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other
miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred D
towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit,
miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying,
court fee etc. are to be also broadly taken into
consideration. It should not be forgotten while imposing
costs that for how long the defendants or respondents
E
were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in
various courts. The appellants in the instant case have
harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in
a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various
courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of F
the various courts for the last 40 years. [Paras 54 and 55]
[1026-B-E]
1.14 On consideration of totality of the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, there is no infirmity in
G
the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These
appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which is
quantified as Rs.2,00,000!· (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The
costs are imposed not out of anguish but by following
·the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A benefit out of frivolous litigation. The appellants are
directed to pay the costs imposed by this Court along
with the costs imposed by the High Court to the
respondents within the stipulated period. The suit
pending before the trial court is at the final stage of the
B arguments, therefore, the said suit is directed to be
disposed of as expeditiously as possible. [Paras 56, 57
and 58] [1026-F-H]
1.15 It is made abundantly clear that the trial court
should not be influenced by any observation or finding
C arrived at by this Court in dealing with these appeals as
the matter has not been decided on merits of the case.
[Para 59] [1027 -B]
Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668:
0 2000 (3) SCR 572; Mahi/a Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34: 2008 (10) SCR 869 - referred
to.
E
Case Law Reference:
2000 (3) SCR 572
2008 (10) SCR 869
Referred to
Referred to
Para 48
Para 51
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4912-4913 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2010 of the High
F Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. (Main) No. 1084 of
2010 and order dated 25.10.2010 in Review Petition No. 429
of 2010.
Dr. Arun Mohan, (A.C.), Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma,
G Tulika Prakash, Kuber Giri for the Appellants.
H
R.P. Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1003
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and
A
order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition
(Main) No. 1084 of 2010 and the order dated 25.10.2010
passed in Review Petition No. 429 of 2010 in Civil
Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
B
3. The apparent discernible question which requires
adjudication in this case seems to be a trivial, insignificant and
small one regarding imposition of costs, but in fact, these
appeals have raised several important questions of law of
great importance which we propose to deal in this judgment.
C
Looking to the importance of the matter we requested Dr. Arun
Mohan, a distinguished senior advocate to assist this court as
an Amicus Curiae.
4. This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the
D
picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how
unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity
harass the respondents and their children by abusing the
judicial system.
E
5. The basic facts which are necessary to dispose of these
appeals are recapitulated as under:-
6. In the year 1952, almost about half a century ago, the
government allotted a residential house bearing nos. 61-62, I-.
Block, Lajpat Nagar-1, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad.
F
The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964.
7. On humane considerations of shelter, Ram Parshad
allowed his three younger brothers - Madan Lal, Krishan Gopal
and Manohar Lal to reside with him in the house. On16.11.1977,
G
these three younger brothers filed a Civil Suit No.993 of 1977
in the High Court of Delhi claiming that this Lajpat Nagar
property belonged to a joint Hindu Family and sought partition
of the property on that basis:
8. The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A
18.01.1982 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Delhi. The appellants (younger brothers) of Ram Parshad,
aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a Regular First
Appeal (Original Side) 4 of 1982 which was admitted to
hearing on 09.03.1982. During the pendency of the appeal,
B Ram Parshad on 15.01.1992 filed a suit against his three
younger brothers for mandatory injunction to remove them and
for recovery of mesne profits. In 1984 Ram Parshad sold
western half (No.61) to an outsider. That matter is no longer in
dispute.
c
9. The first appeal filed by the other three younger brothers
of Ram Parshad against Ram Parshad was dismissed on
09.11.2000. Against the concurrent findings of both of the
judgments, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition
No.3740 of 2001 in this court which was also dismissed on
D 16.03.2001.
E
F
G
H
10. In the suit filed by Ram Pars had (one of the
respondents) (now deceased) ag~inst the appellants in these
appeals the following issues were framed:
1.
Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under
Section 10 CPC as alleged in para no.1 of
Preliminary Objection?
2.
Whether defendants are licencees in the suit
premises and if so whether the plaintiff is entitled
to recover possession of the same from them?
3.
Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred?
4.
Whether suit has been properly valued for the
purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?
5.
Whether the suit property is joint family property of
parties?
6.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits for
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1005
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
use and occupation of the suit property by the
A
defendants and if so at what rate and for which
period?
7.
Whether defendants have become the owner of
three-fourth share of the suit property by adverse
8
possession?
8.
Relief.
and fixed the matter for evidence on 22.11.2004.
11. The defendants in the suit contended that inasmuch as
Regular First Appeal (Original Side) 4of1982 was still pending,
therefore, Ram Parshad's suit be stayed under section 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Accepting the contention, on
20.07.1992, the 1992 suit was ordered to be stayed.
12. The Regular First Appeal was dismissed on 9.11.2000
and the Special leave petition against the said appeal was also
dismissed on 16.3.2001. Consequently, the suit filed by ~am
Parshad for mandatory injunction and for mesne profit stood
c
D
revived on 05.12.2001.
E
13. In the first round of litigation from 16.11.1977 to
16.3.2001 it took about twenty four years and thereafter it had
taken 10 years from 16.3.2001. In the 1992 suit, the defendants
(appellants herein) sought amendment of the written statement
F
which was refused on 28.07.2004. Against this order, a Civil
Miscellaneous (Main) 1153 of 2004 was filed in the High Court
which was disposed of on 02.09.2004 with liberty to move an
application before the trial court for framing an additional issue.
The additional issue regarding the claim of adverse possession
G
by the three younger brothers was framed on 6.10.2004. The
issue was whether the defendants have become the owner of
three-fourth share of the suit property by adverse possession
and the case was fixed up for recording of the evidence.
According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the court before
H:
framing Issue Number 7 and retaining the other issues, ought
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 8 S.C.R.
A to have recorded the statement of defendants under Order 10
Rule 2 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) and
then re-cast the issues as would have been appropriate on the
pleadings of the parties as they would survive after the decision
in the previous litigation.
B
14. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the practice
of mechanically framing the issues needs to be discouraged.
Framing of issues is an important exercise. Utmost care and
attention is required to be bestowed by the judicial officers/
C judges at the time of framing of issues. According to Dr. Arun
Mohan, twenty minutes spent at that time would have saved
several years in court proceedings.
15. In the suit, on 6.11.2004 the application seeking transfer
of the suit from that court was filed which was dismissed by the
D learned District Judge on 22.3.2005. The trial commenced on
22.11.2004, adjournment was sought and was granted against
costs. The plaintiffs' evidence was concluded on 10.2.2005.
16. On 28.5.2005 the defendants failed to produce the
E evidence and their evidence was closed. Against that order,
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 1490 of 2005 was filed in the Delhi
High Court. Staywas granted on 15.7.2005 and the application
was dismissed on 17.12.2007 with liberty to move an
application for taking on record further documents.
F
17. On 12.2.2008, an application under Order 18 Rule 17A
of the CPC was moved. On 'No Objection' from the plaintiff, it
was allowed on 31.7.2008 and the documents and affidavits
were taken on record. On 23.10.2009, the matter was fixed for
evidence. The appellants filed an application under Order 7
G Rule 11 (b) of the CPC for rejection of the 1992 plaint on the
ground of not paying ad valorem court fees on the market value
of property and for under-valuation of relief. This application was
dismissed by the Civil Judge on 09.07.2010 by the following
order:-
H
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1007
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
"M-61/2006
A
09.07.2010
Present : Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
Ld. Counsel for defendant
Application under section 151 CPC is filed by
defendant for treating Issue No.4 as preliminary issue. It
B
pertains to court fees and jurisdiction. It is pertinent to
mention that suit is at the stage of final arguments and
both the parties have led the entire evidence. Ld. Counsel
for defendant submits that this application has been filed
by the defendant in view of the liberty granted to the
C
defendant by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
26.4.2010 dismissing the Civil Revision Petition
application no. 76/10 as withdrawn against the order dated
12.10.2006 passed by this court. It is pointed out to the
counsel for defendant that case is at the stage of final
D
arguments and law enjoins upon the court to return finding
on all the issues. Counsel for the defendant filing this
application seeks disposal of the same. Perused the
application and gone through record. Order 20 Rule 5
clearly states that court has to return finding on each issue.
E
Even Order 14 Rule 2 CPC states that the court has to
pronounce the judgment on all issues notwithstanding that
the case may be disposed off on preliminary issue. Sub
Rule 2 refers to the discretion given to the court where the
court may try issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court
F
or the bar to the suit created by any law for the time being
in force as preliminary issue. It further relates to disposal
of the suit treating these points as preliminary issues and
also relates to deferring the settlement of other issues. But
there is no such case. Entire evidence ha.s been led, the
G
matter is at the stage of final arguments and the point
raised does not relate to the point pertaining to Sub Rule
2. Neither it relates to bar created by any law nor the
jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. It is averrnents
made in the plaint. Contention of the applicant for treating
the issue as preliminary issue is against the spirit of law
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011) 8 S.C.R.
A
as referred in Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.
B
I do not see any merit in this application and the same is
dismissed with the costs of Rs.2000/-.
To come up for payment of cost and final arguments.
Put up on 09.08.2010
(Vipin Kumar Rai)
ACJ/ARC(W)"
18. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2009, the
c defendants (appellants herein) preferred a Civil Revision
Petition No.76 of 2010 in the High Court of Delhi. At the
preliminary hearing, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn,
leaving the trial court at liberty to consider the request of the
appellants to treat Issue Number 4 regarding court fee as a
o preliminary issue.
19. On 09.07.2010, the defendants filed an application
before the Civil Judge for treating Issue Number 4 as a
preliminary issue. This application was rejected by the Civil
Court on 9. 7 .201 O with costs. The matter is at the stage of final
E arguments before the trial court. At this stage, against the order
of the Civil Judge, on 7.8.2010, the appellants filed a petition
being Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No.1084 of 2010 under Article
227 of the Constitution in the High Court which came up for
preliminary hearing on 26.8.2010. On 1.9.2010, the High Court
F dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No.1084 of 2010 by
a detailed judgment rendered at the preliminary hearing and
imposed cost of Rs. 75000/- to be deposited with the Registrar
General. Review Petition No. 429 of 2010 was filed which was
dismissed on 25.10.2010.
G
20. These appeals have been filed against the order
imposing costs and dismissing the review petition.
· 21. The learned Single Judge observed that the present
appellants belong to that category of litigants whose only motive
H is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not to let
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1009
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
the trial conclude. Applications after applications are being filed
A
by the appellants at every stage, even though orders of the trial
court are based on sound reasoning. Moreover, the appellants
have tried to mislead the court also by filing wrong synopsis
and incorrect dates of events.
22. The High Court further observed that the purpose of
filing of brief synopsis with list of dates and events is to give
brief and correct summary of the case and not to mislead the
court. Those litigants or their advocates who mislead the courts
B
by filing wrong and incorrect particulars (the list of dates. and
C
events) must be dealt with heavy hands.
23. In the list of dates and events, it is stated that the
respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery
-
of Rs.36,000/- on 22nd September, 2003. In fact, as per typed
copy of the plaint placed on record, the suit was filed by the
D
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in 1992. Written
statement was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants in 1992. Thus, the appellants tried to mislead the
court by mentioning wrong date of 22nd September, 2003 as
the date of filing.
E
24. The High Court has also dealt with number of
judgments dealing with the power of the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution. According to the High Court, the
suit was filed in the trial court in 1992. The written statement
was filed as far back on 15th April, 1992. On pleadings, Issue
F
Number 4 was framed with regard to court fee and jurisdiction.
The appellants never pressed that Issue Number 4 be treated
as a preliminary issue. Both the parties led their respective
evidence. When the suit was fixed before the trial court for final
arguments, application in question was filed. The appellants
G
argued that Issue Number 4 would also be determined along
with other issues.
25. In the impugned judgment, it is also observed that it is
revealed from the record that the appellants have been moving
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011) 8 S.C.R.
A one application after the other, though all were dismissed with
costs.
26. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellants also
moved transfer application apprehending adverse order from
8 the trial judge, which was also dismissed by the learned District
Judge. This conduct of the appellants demonstrates that they
are determined not to allow the trial court to proceed with the
suit. They are creating all kinds of hurdles and obstacles at every
stage of the proceedings.
C
27. The learned Single Judge observed that even
D
E
F
according to Order 14 Rule 2 CPC the court has to pronounce
the judgment on all issues notwithstanding that the case may
be disposed of on preliminary issue. Order 14..Rule 2 of the
CPC is reads as under:
"ORDER XIV: SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND
DETERMINATION OF SUIT OM ISSUES OF LAW OR ON
ISSUES AGREED UPON.
2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues: (1)
Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a
preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions
of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.
"
28. Sub Rule 2 refers to the discretion given to the court
where the court may try issue relating to the jurisdiction of the .
G court or the bar to the suit created by any law for the time being ·
in force as preliminary issue. It further relates to disposal of the
suit treating these points as preliminary issues and also relates
to deferring the settlement of other issues, but there is no such
case. The entire evidence has been led, the matter is at the
H stage of final arguments and the point raised does not relate
~
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1011
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
to the point pertaining to Sub Rule 2. Neither it relates to bar A
created by any law nor the jurisdiction of the court to entertain
the suit. It is just an averment made in the plaint. Contention of
the appellants for treating the said issue as preliminary issue
is against the spirit of law as referred in Order 20 Rule 5 and
Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC. These observations of the courts
B
below are correct and in pursuance of the provisions of the Act.
The High Court properly analysed the order of the trial court and
observed as under:-
·
"Looking from any angle, no illegality or infirmity can be
found in the impugned order. The only object of petitioners C
is just to delay the trial, which is pending for the last more
than 18 years. To a large extent, petitioners have been
successful in delaying the judicial proceedings by filing
false, frivolous and bogus applications, one after the other.
D
It is well settled that frivolous litigation clogs the wheels of
justice making it difficult for courts to provide easy and
speedy justice to the genuine litigations.
Dismissed
List for compliance oil 7th October, 2010."
29. We have carefully examined the impugned judgment
of the High Court and also order dated 9. 7.2010 passed by the
E
learned Civil Judge, Delhi.
F
30. It is abundantly clear from the facts and circumstances
of this case that the appellants have seriously created
obstacles at every stage during the course of trial and virtually
prevented the court from proceeding with the suit. This is a
typical example of how an ordinary suit moves in our courts. G
Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants on one ground
or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the
matter.
31. The learned Amicus Curiae has taken great pains in
H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
-_ A
giving details of how the case has proceeded in the trial court
by reproducing the entire court orders of 1992 suit. In order to
properly comprehend the functioning of the trial courts, while
dealing with civil cases, we deem it appropriate to reproduce
the order sheets of 1992 suit. This is a typical example of how
B
a usual civil trial proc;.eeds in our courts. The credibility of entire
judiciary is at stake unless effective remedial steps are taken
without further loss of time. Though original litigation and the
appeal which commenced from 1977 but in order to avoid
expanding the scope of these appeals, we are dealing only with
c the second litigation which commenced in 1992. The order
sheets of the suit of 1992 are reproduced as under:-
D
E
F
G
H
Proceedings of Suit - 1992
17 .01.1992
Summons to Defendants on plaintiff and RC
28.02.1992
Fresh summons to Defendants 1 & 2.
Defendant No. 3 refused service. Proceeded
ex-pa rte
30.03.1992
Time sought to file Written Statement for
all the Defendants. Allowed.
20.04.1992
Written Statement filed. Fixed on
30.04.1992 for replication, admission/denial
and framing of issues.
01.05.1992
11.05.1992
26.05.1992
17.07.1992
20.07.1992
Plaintiff sought time to file replication.
Replication filed. Adjourned for
admission/ denial on joint request.
No document for admission/denial. Issues
framed. Fixed for arguments on 17.07.1992.
Arguments heard on preliminary issue.
Suit stayed. Plaintiff granted liberty to
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1013
ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI; J.J
make application for revival after.disposal of A
•
RFA (OS) 4/82 . .
01.06.2001
File sent to District Judge for transferring
the case to proper court.
04.06.2001
District Judge marked to case to the court
B
of Shri Naipal Singh, Additional District
Judge.
02.07.2001
Presiding Officer is on vacation leave.
Fixed for 03.07.2001.
c
03.07.2001
Miscellaneous application notice issued to
the respondent. Main Suit 47/92 summoned.
23.08.2001
Suit file be summoned. Notice of application
to Defendant on PF & RC.
D
16.10.2001
Copy of application given to all the
Defendants. Adjourned for reply to application
and further proceedings.
05.12.2001
Suit has to proceed for the decision on
E
merits.
28.02.2002
Application under Order 6 Rule 17 moved
by Defendant for amendment of Written
Statement. Adjourned for reply and
F
arguments on the application.
16.04.2002
As the value of the suit is below 3 lakhs,
the suit transferred to the court of Civil Judge.
23.04.2002
Reply to application filed. Summons to
G
Defendants other than Defendant No. 3.
21.08.2002
Counsel for the parties not present.
28.11.2002
Presiding Officer on leave.
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A
07.12.2002
At joint request, adjourned. Last opportunity.
22.09.2003
None present. Adjourned for arguments
on Order 6 Rule 17. File transferred to the
court of Shri Prashant Kumar, Civil Judge.
B
12.11.2003
Son of the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff
has expired. Adjourned.
06.12.2003
Presiding Officer not available.
c
16.01.2004
Copy of application under Order 22 Rule
3 supplied. As requested, adjourned.
16.02.2004
Reply not filed. Counsel for the Defendant
seeks time to file reply.
D
01.03.2004
Reply filed. Counsel for the Defendant
.