REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4912-4913      OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3157-3158 of 2011)

Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors.         …Appellants

Versus

Nirmala Devi and Ors.         …Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

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.

1

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.  

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  

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.

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,  

2

I-Block, Lajpat Nagar-I, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad.  

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. On  

16.11.1977,  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 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,  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.  

3

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  

16.03.2001.

10. In the suit filed by Ram Parshad (one of the respondents)  

(now deceased)  against  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?

4

5. Whether the suit property is joint family property of  

parties?

6. Whether  the  plaintiff  is  entitled to mesne profits  for  

use  and  occupation  of  the  suit  property  by  the  

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  

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)  4  of  1982  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  

5

dismissed on 16.3.2001. Consequently, the suit filed by Ram  

Parshad for mandatory injunction and for mesne profit stood  

revived on 05.12.2001.

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 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  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 framing Issue Number 7 and retaining  

the  other  issues,  ought  to  have  recorded  the  statement  of  

defendants under  Order 10 Rule  2 of  the Code of  the Civil  

6

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.

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/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 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  

evidence and their evidence was closed.  Against that order,  

Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 1490 of 2005 was filed in the Delhi  

High  Court.   Stay  was  granted  on  15.7.2005  and  the  

7

application was dismissed on 17.12.2007 with liberty to move  

an application for taking on record further documents.

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 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 :-

“M-61/2006 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 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  defendant  by  the  Hon’ble  High  Court vide order dated 26.4.2010 dismissing the  

8

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 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.   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  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 has been led, the 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 averments made in the plaint.  Contention of  the applicant for treating the issue as preliminary  issue is  against  the spirit  of  law as referred in  Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.  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)

9

ACJ/ARC(W)”

18. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2009, the 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  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  

9.7.2010  with  costs.   The  matter  is  at  the  stage  of  final  

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  dismissed  the  Civil  Miscellaneous  (Main)  

No.1084  of  2010  by  a  detailed  judgment  rendered  at  the  

1

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.

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 is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not  

to let the trial  conclude.  Applications after applications are  

being  filed  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  

1

courts  by  filing  wrong  and  incorrect  particulars  (the  list  of  

dates and 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  

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.

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 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  

1

evidence.  When the suit was fixed before the trial court for  

final  arguments,  application  in  question  was  filed.   The  

appellants  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  

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  

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.

27. The learned Single Judge observed that even 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  

1

on preliminary issue.  Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC is reads as  

under:  

“ORDER XIV:  SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND  DETERMINATION  OF  SUIT  ON  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  

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 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 just an averment made in the  

1

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 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  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.  

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 on 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  

learned Civil Judge, Delhi.

1

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.  

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  

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 a usual civil trial proceeds 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  

1

are dealing only with the second litigation which commenced  

in 1992.  The order sheets of the suit of 1992 are reproduced  

as under :-

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-parte

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 Plaintiff  sought  time  to  file  replication.

11.05.1992 Replication  filed.   Adjourned  for  admission/ denial on joint request.

26.05.1992 No document for admission/denial.  Issues framed.  Fixed for arguments  on 17.07.1992.

17.07.1992 Arguments  heard  on  preliminary  issue.

1

20.07.1992 Suit stayed.  Plaintiff granted liberty  to make application for revival after  disposal of 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  of  Shri  Naipal  Singh,  Additional District Judge.

02.07.2001 Presiding  Officer  is  on  vacation  leave.  Fixed for 03.07.2001.

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.

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 merits.

28.02.2002 Application under Order 6 Rule 17  moved by Defendant for amendment  of Written Statement.  Adjourned for  reply  and  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.

1

23.04.2002 Reply to application filed. Summons  to Defendants other than Defendant  No. 3.

21.08.2002 Counsel for the parties not present.

28.11.2002 Presiding Officer on leave.

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.

12.11.2003 Son of  the Plaintiff  stated that  the  Plaintiff has expired.  Adjourned.

06.12.2003 Presiding Officer not available.

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.

01.03.2004 Reply  filed.   Counsel  for  the  Defendant  objected  that  the  addresses  of  Legal  Representatives  are not correct.

24.03.2004 Application  Order  22  Rule  3  is  allowed.   Right  to  sue  survives.  Order  6  Rule  17  pending  for  disposal.

1

27.04.2004 Arguments heard.

22.05.2004 Plaintiff  wants  to  file  written  submissions  with  regard  to  clarification.  Allowed.

03.07.2004 None  for  Defendants.   Written  submissions filed by Plaintiff.

28.7.2004 Present  none.   Order  6  Rule  17  dismissed.

02.09.2004 None for Defendants.  Fixed for PE  to 06.10.2004

28.09.2004 Defendant moved application Order  14 Rule 5.  Notice issued.

06.10.2004 Issues reframed.  Defendant sought  time to cross-examine PW.

22.11.2004 PW present.   Defendant prayed for  adjournment.   Defendant  moved  application for transfer of the case.  Last  opportunity  for  cross- examination.

21.12.2004 PW  present.   Previous  cost  not  pressed  for.   PW  sought  time  for  obtaining copies of documents.

10.02.2005 PW cross-examined.  PE closed.

15.03.2005 No DW present

19.04.2005 Affidavit of DW filed.  However DW  stated  that  he  is  not  feeling  well.  Adjourned.

2

28.05.2004 Defendant  stated  that  he  does  not  want to lead evidence.   DE closed.  Fixed for final arguments.

15.07.2005 Stay by the High Court in CM (Main)  1490/2005.

18.07.2005 Counsel  for  the  Defendant  states  that the High Court has stayed the  matter.  Directed to file the copy of  the order.

25.08.2005 No copy of the order is filed.

29.10.2005 Matter under stay by High Court.

30.01.2006 Fresh  suit  received  by  transfer.  Adjourned for proper orders.

02.05.2006 Notice to Defendants.

31.05.2006 Counsel  for  the  Defendants  served  but none appeared.  Adjourned for  final arguments.

21.08.2006 File not traceable.  Adjourned.

09.12.2006 Present:   Counsel  for  the  plaintiff.  Adjourned for final arguments.

19.02.2007 Counsel  for  the  plaintiff.  Proceedings  stayed  by  the  High  Court.

21.08.2007 Counsel for the Plaintiff.   Matter  under stay by the High Court.

17.12.2007 CM (Main) 1490/2005 dismissed by  the High Court.  Stay vacated.

2

10.1.2008Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff.   None  for  the  Defendant.  Adjourned.

12.02.2008 Defendant  filed  application  O18  R17A.   Copy  supplied.   Adjourned  for reply and ar guments.

30.04.2008 Reply  filed  by  the  Plaintiff.  Application  allowed  to  cost  of  Rs.7,000/-, out of which Rs.1,000/-  to  be  deposited  in  Legal  Aid.  Adjourned for DE.

31.07.2008 Defendant  sought  adjournment  on  the  ground  that  witness  is  not  feeling well.

29.9.2008 Plaintiff  moved application Order 6  Rule 17.  Copy supplied.  

23.12.2008 Reply filed.  Come up for arguments  on the application.

21.5.2009 Part arguments heard.

22.07.2009 Plaintiff  does  not  press  for  the  application.   Dismissed.   To  come  up for DE.

05.10.2009 Defendants  witness  not  present.  Application  for  exemption  allowed.  Affidavit already filed.

23.10.2009 Application  under  Order  7  Rule  1  CPC filed.   Dismissed.   Affidavit  of  Kishan  Gopal   tendered  as  DW1,  and  he  is  cross-examined  and  

2

discharged.  No other witness.  DE  closed.

11.01.2010 Presiding Officer on leave.

23.03.2010 Defendant  seeks  adjournment  on  the  ground  that  main  counsel  not  available.

3.5.2010 Adjournment  sought  on  behalf  of  the parties.

26.5.2010 File not traceable.

9.7.2010 Application under Section 151 CPC  for  treating  No.  4  as  preliminary  issue.   Dismissed  with  cost  of  Rs.2,000/-

9.8.2010 Application for adjournment filed.

27.9.2010 Presiding Officer on leave.

23.10.2010 For final arguments.

18.12.2010 For final arguments.

22.1.2011 For final arguments.

5.2.2011 For final arguments.

26.2.2011 Sought adjournment on the ground  that  the  matter  regarding  cost  is  pending in Hon’ble Supreme Court.  

32. Dr. Arun Mohan, learned amicus curiae, has written an  

extremely  useful,  informative  and  unusual  book  “Justice,   

2

Courts  and  Delays”.  This  book  also  deals  with  the  main  

causes of delay in the administration of justice. He has also  

suggested some effective remedial measures.  We would briefly  

deal  with the  aspect  of  delay in  disposal  of  civil  cases and  

some  remedial  measures  and  suggestions  to  improve  the  

situation.  According  to  our  considered  view,  if  these  

suggestions are implemented in proper perspective, then the  

present  justice  delivery  system  of  civil  litigation  would  

certainly improve to a great extent.

33. According to the learned author, 90% of our court time  

and  resources  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 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.

2

34. According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled for  

litigation  gets  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 our courts and that operates 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 time and resources will be  

consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied.   

35. According  to  the  learned  author  lesser  the  court’s  

attention  towards  full  restitution  and  realistic  costs,  which  

translates as profit for the wrongdoer, the greater would be the  

generation of uncalled for litigation and exercise of skills for  

achieving delays by impurity in presentation and deployment  

of obstructive tactics.

2

36. According to him 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 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  

court ultimately awarding what kind of restitution, costs and  

fines against him – paltry or realistic.  This perception ought to  

be the real risk evaluation.  

37. According to the learned Amicus Curiae if the appellants  

had  the  apprehension  of  imposition  of  realistic  costs  or  

restitution, then this litigation perhaps would not have been  

filed.  According to him, ideally, having lost up to the highest  

court  (16.03.2001),  the  appellants  (defendants  in  the  suit)  

ought to have vacated the premises and moved out on their  

own, but the appellants seem to have acted as most parties  

do–calculate the cost (risk)-benefit ratio between surrendering  

2

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 by the other side.

Profits for the wrongdoer  

38. According  to the learned Amicus Curiae, every lease on  

its expiry, or a license on its revocation cannot be converted  

itself into litigation.  Unfortunately, our courts are flooded with  

these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrong-  

doers 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 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  unauthorized  person  by  awarding  

2

realistic and actual mesne profits, imposing costs or ordering  

prosecution.   

39. It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of flats  

and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in 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.  Pragmatic approach of the courts  

would partly solve the housing problem of this country.  

40. 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 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, we have to remove  

the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer.  

2

41. 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.

42. According to the learned Amicus Curiae the court should  

have first examined the pleadings and then not only granted  

leave to amend but directed amendment of the pleadings so  

that  the  parties  were  confined  to  those  pleas  which  still  

survived the High Court’s decision.  Secondly, it should have  

directed  discovery  and  production  of  documents  and  their  

admission/denial.   Thirdly,  if  the  civil  judge  on  6.10.2004,  

which was three and a half  years after the dismissal  of  the  

Special  Leave Petition  on 16.3.2001,  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 following order:

“In  my  prima  facie  view,  your  pleadings  are  not  sufficient to raise an issue for adverse possession,  secondly how can you contend adverse possession  of three-fourth share? And thirdly,  your pleadings  

2

and  contentions  before  the  High  Court  had  the  effect of  completely negating any claim to adverse  possession. …”

43. 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  

learned Presiding Judge while framing of issues.  

44. In the instant case when the entire question of title has  

been  determined  by  the  High  Court  and  the  Special  Leave  

Petition  against  that  judgment  has  been  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 clearly demonstrates total  

non-application of mind.   

45. We have carefully examined the written submissions of  

the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the parties.  

We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong-  

doers  are  denied profit  or  undue benefit  from the  frivolous  

3

litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled  

for  litigations.   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.  It is a matter of common  

experience that court’s otherwise scarce and valuable time is  

consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of  

uncalled for cases.  

46. Usually  the  court  should  be  cautious  and  extremely  

careful  while granting ex-parte  ad interim 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  vacated  or  modified  in  our  existing  judicial  

system is a nightmare.  Therefore, as a rule, the court should  

grant interim  injunction or stay order only after hearing the  

defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to  

grant  ex-parte   injunction  in  exceptional  cases  then  while  

granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit  

3

is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have  

to  pay  full  restitution,  actual  or  realistic  costs  and  mesne  

profits.

47. If  an exparte  injunction order  is  granted,  then in  that  

case  an  endeavour  should  be  made  to  dispose  of  the  

application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible,  

preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court.

48. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad  

interim injunction  is  granted,  the  plaintiff  or  the  petitioner  

would  make  all  efforts  to  ensure  that  injunction  continues  

indefinitely.  The 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  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.  We  have  to  dispel  the  common  

impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on  

even false averments and forged documents will  tire out the  

3

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  are  filed  

indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any  

apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or  

even pay heavy costs.  In Swaran Singh  v.  State of Punjab  

(2000) 5 SCC 668  this court was constrained to observe that  

perjury has become a way of life in our courts.

49. It  is  a  typical  example  how  a  litigation  proceeds  and  

continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer.  

50. Learned  amicus  articulated  common  man’s  general  

impression about litigation in following words:

“Make any false averment,  conceal  any fact,  raise  any  plea,  produce  any  false  document,  deny  any  genuine  document,  it  will  successfully  stall  the  litigation,  and  in  any  case,  delay  the  matter  endlessly.   The other party will  be coerced into a  settlement which will be profitable for me and the  probability  of  the  court  ordering  prosecution  for  perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident  while crossing the road.”

3

This court in Swaran Singh  (Supra) observed as under:

“… … …Perjury has also become a way of life  in  the  law courts.   A  trial  Judge  knows that  the  witness  is  telling  a  lie  and  is  going  back  on  his  previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish  him or  even file  a  complaint  against  him.   He is  required to sign the complaint himself which deters  him from filing the complaint.  Perhaps law needs  amendment to clause (b) of Section 340 (3) of the  Code of Criminal  Procedure in this respect as the  High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint.  To get rid of the evil  of  perjury,  the court should  resort  to  the  use  of  the  provisions  of  law  as  contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal  Procedure.”

51. In  a  recent  judgment  in  the  case  of  Mahila  Vinod  

Kumari v.  State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34 this  

court has shown great concern about alarming proportion of  

perjury cases in our country.

52. The main question which arises for our consideration is  

whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed?  

In  our  considered  opinion  the  existing  system  can  be  

drastically  changed  or  improved  if  the  following  steps  are  

taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials.

3

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  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  

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 controlling the tendency of introducing  

false  pleadings  and  forged  and  fabricated  

documents  by  the  litigants.   Imposition  of  

3

heavy  costs  would  also  control  unnecessary  

adjournments by the parties.   In appropriate  

cases  the  courts  may  consider  ordering  

prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to  

maintain  purity  and  sanctity  of  judicial  

proceedings.

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.  

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  

3

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 Court 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.

3

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 fixed in the said suit itself so that the  

date  fixed  for  the  main  suit  may  not  be  

disturbed.

 53. According  to  us,  these  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  some  time  for  the  courts,  litigants  and  the  

advocates to follow the aforesaid steps, but once it is observed  

across the country, then prevailing system of adjudication of  

civil courts is bound to improve.  

3

54. While imposing  costs we have to take into consideration  

pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the  

respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation  

before  different  courts.   We  have  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.   

55. The  other  factor  which  should  not  be  forgotten  while  

imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents  

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 the various courts for the last  

40 years.   

56. On  consideration  of  totality  of  the  facts  and  

circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the  

3

well reasoned impugned order/judgment.  These appeals are  

consequently  dismissed  with  costs,  which  we  quantify  as  

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).  We are imposing the  

costs  not  out  of  anguish  but  by  following  the  fundamental  

principle  that  wrongdoers  should  not  get  benefit  out  of  

frivolous litigation.   

57. 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 six weeks from today.     

58. The suit pending before the trial court is at the final stage  

of  the  arguments,  therefore,  the  said  suit  is  directed  to  be  

disposed  of  as  expeditiously  as  possible  and  in  any  event  

within three months from the date of the communication of  

the order.  

59. We make it abundantly clear that the trial court should  

not be influenced by any observation or finding arrived at by  

us in dealing with these appeals as we have not decided the  

matter on merits of the case.

60. Before parting with this case we would like to record our  

deep appreciation for extremely valuable assistance provided  

4

by the learned amicus curiae.  Dr. Arun Mohan did not only  

provide  valuable  assistance  on  the  questions  of  law  but  

inspected  the  entire  record  of  the  trial  court  and  for  the  

convenience  of  the  court  filed  the  entire  court  proceedings,  

other  relevant  documents,  such  as  the  plaint,  written  

statement and relevant judgments.  It  is  extremely rare  that  

such good assistance is provided by the amicus curiae.  In our  

considered  view,  learned  amicus  curiae  has  discharged  his  

obligation towards the profession in an exemplary manner.

61. These appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the  

aforementioned directions.

……………………..J. (Dalveer Bhandari)

…………………..J.           (Deepak Verma)

New Delhi July 4, 2011

4