Dismissed

Asesar Sah and Anr. v. Jawaharlal Prasad and Ors.

Patna HC9 Jan 2017C.Misc./1583/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition filed to delay a title suit. The court held the application frivolous and vexatious, imposing costs of Rs.10,000 and directing expedited disposal of the underlying suit.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous application dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000; lower court directed to proceed with title suit expeditiously.

Asesar Sah and Anr. Vs Jawaharlal Prasad and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1583 of 2016 (2) dt.09-01-2017 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1583 of 2016

¶3

====================================================== Asesar Sah & Anr

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus Jawaharlal Prasad & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Khatim Reza For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER

¶5

2 09-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Khatim Reza for the petitioners.

¶6

Perused the impugned order dated 20.08.2010 passed by Civil Judge(Jr. Div.), Bettiah, West Champaran in Misc. Case No.46 of 1998 whereby the learned Court below has held that the earlier written statement filed by the petitioner is the correct written statement and accepted the same.

¶7

It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents filed Title Suit No.122 of 1994. The present petitioners filed written statement on 26.09.1995. Thereafter again, in 1997, another written statement was filed by the petitioners saying that earlier written statement is not his written statement and insisted for enquiry. This application was registered as Misc. Case No.46 of 1998. This miscellaneous case has been decided by the order dated 20.08.2010 and it has been held that the written statement filed on 26.09.1995 is the

¶8

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1583 of 2016 (2) dt.09-01-2017 2

¶9

written statement filed by the petitioners.

¶10

From perusal of the order, it appears that the court below has recorded the evidences of the parties and then come to the conclusion and dismissed the miscellaneous case. However, it appears that the suit which is of the year 1994 could not be disposed of because of this miscellaneous case filed by the present petitioners and now after the finding of the court below it becomes clear that the application filed by the petitioners is frivolous and vexatious application which was filed with a view to delay the disposal of Title Suit No.122 of 1994. Because of pendency of this enquiry, the suit of the year 1994 is still at the initial stage. In other words, the petitioner has been able to delay the matter for about twenty years by filing the frivolous application and adopting the dilatory tactics.

¶11

The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 249 has given some guidelines for shortening the civil litigations vide paragraph 52 (c). The Supreme Court has held that 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 heavy

¶12

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1583 of 2016 (2) dt.09-01-2017 3

¶13

costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. At paragraph 54, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “ while imposing cost, we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to 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 fees structures of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopy, court fee etc.” At paragraph 55, again it has been held “ 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.”

¶14

In the present case, as stated above, the petitioners are adopting the dilatory tactics for filing frivolous and false application and have been able to drag the suit of year 1994 till twenty years.

¶15

Therefore, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents within two months from today failing which the respondents shall be at liberty to realize the cost through process

¶16

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1583 of 2016 (2) dt.09-01-2017 4

¶17

of the court. The Court below is directed to proceed with the title suit for expeditious disposal.

¶18

Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is accordingly

¶19

dismissed with cost as aforesaid.

¶20

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)

¶21

Saurabh/-

¶22

U T

Asesar Sah and Anr. v. Jawaharlal Prasad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asesar Sah and Anr. v. Jawaharlal Prasad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Israfil Haque and Ors. Vs Md. Jasim

Ritesh Kumar @ Guddu Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

M/s Balaji Transport and Anr. Vs The Chairman, Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Ram Nath Prasad Vs Baidnath Prasad and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Pooja Kumari

Ajay Kumar Jha Vs Smt. Sarita Mishra