Dismissed

Veeramani and Another v. Mumtaz Ali , Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 Others

Telangana HC23 Jan 2012CRP/1650/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order by the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal. The Court held that the earlier dismissal of a related suit by a different forum did not justify rejection of the current plaint. The opinion condemned the petitioners for vexatious litigation and imposed Rs. 10,000 costs.

What did the court decide?

Costs of Rs.10,000 to the AP Legal Services Authority; vacating of interim order; dismissal of related miscellaneous petitions as infructuous.

Veeramani and Another Vs Mumtaz Ali , Mumtaz Ahmed and… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1650 of 2001

¶3

Date:23.01.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Veeramani and another

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

And:

¶8

Mumtaz Ali @ Mumtaz Ahmed And another.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.C.D.Sekhar For Sri P.Venugopal

¶11

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3: None appeared

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The petitioners, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed by respondent No.1, filed this Civil Revision Petition against order, dated 13.12.2000, in I.A.No.182 of 1998 in O.S.No.95 of 1998 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder the application filed by the petitioners seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “the Code”) was dismissed.

¶15

The present Civil Revision Petition was dismissed against respondent No.2 who died, and in whose place

¶16

legal representatives were not brought on record.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶18

The only ground on which the petitioners filed the said application before the Tribunal was that the earlier suit filed by respondent No.3 in O.S.No.2198 of 1987 on the file of learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against them for declaration of the suit schedule property as “Wakf property” was dismissed and the appeal preferred by respondent No.3 in A.S.No.333 of 1994 was also dismissed.

¶19

The Tribunal, however, took notice of the fact that against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2198 of 1987, as confirmed in A.S.No.333 of 1994, respondent No.3 has filed Second Appeal No.157 of 1999 and that the same is pending before this Court. It was further observed by the Tribunal that as it alone has got jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by respondent No.1 under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the application filed for rejection of the plaint is not sustainable.

¶20

In my opinion, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. Even assuming that the previous suit filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed, the same does not constitute a ground for rejection of the plaint in the suit filed by respondent No.1 for

¶21

the relief of injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to satisfy that the ground on which they sought for rejection of the plaint falls in any one of the sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Order VII Rule 11 Code.

¶22

It is perplexing to note that the petitioners are able to successfully stall the suit from the year 2001 by resorting to vexatious litigation. The conduct of the petitioners reflects the typical attitude of civil litigants whose main aim is to drag the litigation as much as possible by resorting to filing I.A. after I.A. for some relief or the other in the pending cases and approaching higher Courts after suffering adverse orders in the lower Courts. Even though Section 115 of the Code which provides for revisional remedy was amended by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1-7-2002 by adding a proviso which restricted the availability of the remedy of revision only against orders passed at the interlocutory stage having the effect of finally disposing suit or other proceedings, they are nevertheless taking their chances by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This attitude is bringing disrepute to the functioning of the Courts. The parties approaching the Courts bonafide seeking redressal of their legitimate grievances are made to suffer due to this litigious attitude of the incorrigible litigants. The civil litigation is being dragged for generations with no hope for the genuine parties to see the end of litigation during their life time. They are so much vexed by the frivolous litigation

¶23

indulged in by their unscrupulous adversaries that even if they eventually succeed after a long drawn battle, they are drained of all their energies and resources to enjoy the success of the litigation. The adage that the party losing the case cries in the Court and the successful party cries on reaching home is proving to be not mere a hyperbole or a figure of speech, but a reality. It is high time that the Courts, at whatever level, should put down vexatious litigation such as this with a heavy hand. Sooner this is done, it is better for the society and for the judiciary in order to restore the sagging public faith in this glorious institution.

¶24

While dismissing the Civil Revision Petition as wholly vexatious, the petitioners are saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of four weeks from today. If the petitioners do not pay the costs, the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, shall recover the same from them through legal process.

¶25

As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, interim order, dated 26.09.2002, is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.7228 of 2001 filed by the petitioners for interim relief and C.R.P.M.P.No.7377 of 2001 filed by respondent No.1 for vacating the interim order, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶26

_____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23^rd January 2012

¶27

L.R. copies to be marked

¶28

DR/AM

Veeramani and Another v. Mumtaz Ali , Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeramani and Another v. Mumtaz Ali , Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Damodar, Vs C.ramu Yadav

M/S Shriram Chits [P] Limited, Vs P.Sridhar

Smt. Smitha Anand, Vs v.Sandesh Reddy

Vijaya Bank,Malakpet Branch, Vs Shaik mohinuddin

M/S Srinivasa Deluxe Theaatre Ongole Vs Dy.Comm. (C.T.) (Fac) Guntur E.Tax.Apple

L. Dasaratha Naidu Vs S. Raja Reddy