Allowed

Sultan Singh and Others v. Kartar Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2012CR/1476/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court refused to allow amendment of the plaint filed after evidence was closed, rejecting the petitioners' claim that they mistakenly sued on inheritance rights when the property was actually purchased. The court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs.

What did the court decide?

Original order dismissing amendment application was upheld; costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed; prosecution of parties directed.

Sultan Singh and Others Vs Kartar Singh and Others — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1476 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 1476 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.3.2012

¶4

Sultan Singh and others

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Kartar Singh and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.2.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.

¶13

The suit was filed by the petitioners for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming that the property in dispute had been inherited by them. The suit was filed on 26.3.2007. Prior to the filing of the application in question, earlier also one application for amendment of the plaint was filed for changing the description of the property in the suit, which was allowed on 30.4.2010. The evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs was closed on 16.11.2011. The application was filed subsequent thereto, i.e., on 6.12.2011 seeking to amend the plaint by taking a plea that in fact the property in dispute was purchased by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners-plaintiffs. In the written statement, the stand taken by the respondents-defendants was that they had purchased the property. Apparently, the petitioners-plaintiffs had led evidence and closed the same supporting their case on a false plea that the property had been inherited by them from their predecessors-in-interest. It is sought to be claimed that they came to know about the mistake when the evidence was being led and their counsel informed them that the revenue

¶14

Civil Revision No. 1476 of 2012 [2]

¶15

record is not supporting their case regarding the property being ancestral.

¶16

Apparently, the suit was filed taking a false plea without even going through the documents as to whether the petitioners will make out their case on the basis of documents sought to be referred to in the plaint originally filed. Permitting the petitioners to amend the plaint at this stage would mean not only delay in disposal of the suit but also wastage of more than five years court's time already spent in proceeding with the case filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs on the basis of an admitted false plea taken in the plaint, though which is sought to be justified as bonafide.

¶17

Similar issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and others Vs. Nirmla Devi and others (2011) 8 SCC 249, wherein it was observed that it has became a matter of routine practice for the parties to the litigation to make false averments, file false documents and continue with the proceedings for the years together and then take a plea of mistake of fact; which needs to be discouraged. Relevant paragraphs thereof have been reproduced hereunder:

¶18

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 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.

¶19

It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer.

¶20

The learned amicus articulated common

¶21

Civil Revision No. 1476 of 2012 [3]

¶22

man's general impression about litigation in following words:

¶23

"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." 50. This court in Swaran Singh (Supra) observed as

¶24

under:

¶25

“36. ........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."

¶26

In a recent judgment in the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of M. P. (2008) 8 SCC 34

¶27

Civil Revision No. 1476 of 2012 [4]

¶28

this court has shown great concern about the alarming proportion of perjury cases in our country.”

¶29

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 8 SCC 161, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the courts would be fully justified in imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. Practice of filing frivolous applications has also been discouraged. Relevant paragraphs have been reproduced here:

¶30

The court's constant endeavour must be to ensure that everyone gets just and fair treatment. The court while rendering justice must adopt a pragmatic approach and in appropriate cases realistic costs and compensation be ordered in order to discourage dishonest litigation. The object and true meaning of the concept of restitution cannot be achieved or accomplished unless the courts adopt a pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases.

¶31

This court in a very recent case Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others 2011 (6) Scale 677 had an occasion to deal with similar questions of law regarding imposition of realistic costs and restitution. One of us (Bhandari, J.) was the author of the judgment. It was observed in that case as under:

¶32

"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. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or

¶33

Civil Revision No. 1476 of 2012 [5]

¶34

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."

¶35

The other aspect which has been dealt with in great details is to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by the litigants. While adjudicating, the courts must keep the following principles in view.

¶36

(1) It is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court.

¶37

(2) When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of additional right upon the litigating party.

¶38

(3) Unscrupulous litigants be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the Court.

¶39

(4) A person in wrongful possession should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled to pay for wrongful use of that premises fine, penalty and costs. Any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system.

¶40

(5) No litigant can derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law.

¶41

(6) A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs.

¶42

Civil Revision No. 1476 of 2012 [6]

¶43

(7) Litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so that the unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

¶44

(8) The institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by delayed action of courts.”

¶45

As to whether amendment is to be allowed or not, is one issue which in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand deserves to be declined, seeing the conduct of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Ordered accordingly.

¶46

Another issue is for taking appropriate action including imposition of cost for taking a false plea and also supporting the same in the evidence led before the court below, which already stood concluded before the application for amendment of the plaint was filed. Harassing a litigant for years together and wasting courts precious time in a frivolous and dishonest litigation needs to be discouraged with stern hand. For wasting court's time of more than five years by taking and proceeding with a false plea, the petitioners-plaintiffs are burdened with cost of ` 50,000/-, which shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee upto July 6, 2012. It is further directed that the learned court below shall also consider the aspect of prosecuting the petitioners-plaintiffs and/or the witnesses who have pleaded and deposed in favour of a false plea taken in the suit. It is also directed that before directing their prosecution, appropriate opportunity should be afforded to affected persons.

¶47

The petition is dismissed.

¶48

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶49

12.3.2012 mk

¶50

( Refer to Reporter )

Sultan Singh and Others v. Kartar Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan Singh and Others v. Kartar Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhu Singh Vs State of Pb.

Gurpal Singh Vs State of Pb.

State of Punjab Vs Gurdev Singh

Harmukh Vs Kishan Lal and Ors.

Punjab Wakf Board Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Vs M/S Anuj Filling Station etc.