Gujarat High Court
Shahjahan Sayed Ali Mulla vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (RECALL) NO. 8571 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 30 of 2025
==========================================================
SHAHJAHAN SAYED ALI MULLA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. GHANSHYAM UPADHYAY FOR MR SMIT P VAGHELA(10653) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. JAY MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - State
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed for seeking the following reliefs:
"a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to recall its order dated 30.01.2025, passed in Special Criminal Application No.30/2025 and decide the Special Criminal Application No.30/2025 afresh in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the matter of Bijay Agarwal V/s.
M/s. Midline-2024 SSC OnLine SC 494:
b) that any such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require, be granted;"Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined
2. Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Smit Vaghela, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP for the respondent - State.
3.1 It is relevant to note that in Special Criminal Application No. 30 of 2025, this Court has given full- fledged opportunity of hearing to Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned advocate for the applicant, and at least on two occasions, the matter was heard at length and thereafter, the written submissions are also filed by the respective parties, thereafter, this Court, after considering the necessary materials available on the record in best possible manner, has decided the matter in accordance with law by considering the relevant aspects of the matter.
3.2 The present application is filed for recalling of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025. The Court has asked to Mr. Upadhyay, learned advocate for making necessary submissions by making attempt to satisfy that the present application with such prayer can be entertained Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined and can be proceeded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, more particularly, considering the fact that order which is now sought to be recalled was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2379-2382 of 2025, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has vide order dated 18.02.2025 has passed the following order:
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, the petitioner is granted a period of three months to comply with the impugned order.
There shall be stay of the warrant issued against the petitioner for such period of three months.
The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
3.3 Therefore, considering this aspect, when the Hon'ble Apex Court has not entertained the Special Leave to Appeal of the present petitioner at the admission stage itself, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court has only granted time to the petitioner to comply with the order passed by the learned Sessions Court within a period of three months from the date of order i.e. 18.02.2025 passed by Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4.1 Pursuant to the query raised by this Court, Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Smit Vaghela, learned advocate for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court that this Court has not considered various submissions made at the bar at the relevant point of time i.e. on 30.01.2025 while passing the impugned order in Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025 and, therefore, such application for recall is maintainable. He has strongly relied on two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Asit Kumar Kar vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 703, more particularly, paras 6 and 7 are relevant, (ii) Vishnu Agarwal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2011) 14 SCC 813, more particularly, paras 6 and 7 are relevant paras. He has tried to rely on the various judgments of Karnataka High Court and other High Courts on same point, however, he has not supplied copy of any such judgment.
4.2 Furthermore, he has submitted that when the Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2379-2382 of 2025 in limine (at the admission stage such without discussing the merits of the matter) then the application for recall is not barred and can be maintainable. He has further submitted that he is not seeking any review of the order but he is seeking recall of the order and, therefore, he has submitted that when the Court has passed the order on 30.01.2025 in Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025, the Court has not taken into consideration the important aspects of the matter and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be recalled as it will be in the interest of the parties as applicant can also get fair opportunity.
5. Learned APP Mr. Jay Mehta for the respondent - State has submitted that there is no apparent error in the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025, which is passed after detailed hearing of the matter and though the State is formal party but with a view to assist Court on factual aspects, he has submitted that the applicant is owing the liability of pay more than Rs.9 crores pursuant to the proceeding filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined though the learned trial court has passed the order on 03.02.2024, which was sought to be challenged before the learned lower appellate court and, as lower appellate court has imposed condition in view of provisions of Section 143 read with Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter also, the proceedings by way of Special Criminal Application was filed before this Court by not depositing single penny and, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is also required to be taken note for the same and, hence, considering the intention of the party, who is filing the present application is nothing but an attempt to delay the compliance of the order passed by lower appellate court. He has further submitted that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed Special Leave to Appeal whereby the impugned order passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application was challenged, which is now sought to be recalled by way of this application, and therefore, there is no substance in the present application, which is filed with malafide intention and, therefore, the present application is required to be dismissed with appropriate observations.
Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined 6.1 Considering the rival submissions made at the bar prime facie, this court is of the opinion that applicant is filing one proceeding after another with a view to dragging the proceedings pending before lower court without paying any amount as directed by the learned Court, which shows that the applicant is not pursuing the legal proceedings bonafidely and is also trying to delay the proceedings with some ulterior motive to escape from the liability to pay the amount, which is directed by the learned lower appellate court at the time of consideration of the appeal, more particularly, when the trial court, after full-fledged trial, has also passed the necessary order by convicting the accused persons and thereafter, when the present petitioner has preferred the appeal, there also, there is some direction given by the lower appellate court, which was challenged by way of Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025 before this Court. This Court has, after hearing the concerned parties and after giving full-fledged opportunity to the present petitioner, even by permitting him to filing written submission, has decided the petition by way of impugned judgment dated 30.01.2025. This Court has considered various aspects of the matter in detailed Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined discussion in the judgment which runs into 31 pages. 6.2 It is also noteworthy to note that instead of filing the present application immediately after order passed on 30.01.2025 by this Court, if at all applicant is of the opinion that there is some scope of recalling of the order on any grounds now agitated in the present application, he could have availed immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025 passed on 30.01.2025. Instead of that, the petitioner has first exhausted his remedy by way of approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court by challenging the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025, which is decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court at the admission stage by passing order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2379-2382 of 2025 on 18.02.2025. The said order is once again reproduced for ready reference:
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, the Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined petitioner is granted a period of three months to comply with the impugned order.
There shall be stay of the warrant issued against the petitioner for such period of three months.
The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
6.3 From bare perusal of the order, even the Supreme Court is convinced that there is no infirmity found in the order passed by this Court on 30.01.2025 and therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal and with a view to giving some time to the present petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the present petitioner to comply the order passed by the lower court within three months from the date of the order i.e. 18.02.2025 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. Instead of complying the said order, the present application is filed for recalling of the impugned order though no case is made out for recalling of order. 6.4 Now, we must consider the provisions of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is pari- materia of Section 403 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which read as under:
Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined "Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:-
362. Court not to alter judgment.
- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
Section 403 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:-
403. Court not to alter judgment.
Save as otherwise provided by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."
6.5 On bare reading of the said section, the present application is found misconceived and with a view to misuse the process of law though same is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
6.6.1 Moreover, considering the judgment relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay in support of his submissions in the case of Asit Kumar Kar (supra), more particularly, paras 6 and 7 are relevant, as under: Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined "6. There is a distinction between a petition under Article 32, a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition the Court considers on merits where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party.
7. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. [2007 (11) SCC 374] cancelling certain licences was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences. In these circumstances, we recall the directions in paragraph 40 of the aforesaid judgment. However, if anybody has a grievance against the grant of licences or in the policy of the State Government, he will be at liberty to challenge it in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. The writ petitions are disposed of with these directions."
Even considering facts of this judgment, where the recall application is filed, which is filed in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is distinction between the review and recall petition. The Court has also observed that while in a review petition Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined the Court considers on merits where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which is not the case of the present petitioner. The Supreme Court has also observed that in a recall petition, the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order, which was passed without giving an opportunity hearing to an affected party. Here, it is admitted position that the petition is filed by the present petitioner i.e. Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025, which is argued at length by the present petitioner and not only that, the petitioner has also filed written submission and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not heard and, therefore, on that count also, the recall application is not required to be entertained and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not coming to rescue of the present petitioner.
6.6.2 It is also relevant to refer the judgment relied by learned advocate for the applicant in the case of Vishnu Agarwal (supra), more particularly, paras 6 and 7 are relevant, as under:
"6. In our opinion, Section 362 cannot be considered in a rigid and over technical manner to defeat the ends of justice. As Brahaspati has observed :Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined "Kevalam Shastram Ashritya Na Kartavyo Vinirnayah Yuktiheeney Vichare tu Dharmahaani Prajayate"
which means:
"The Court should not give its decision based only on the letter of the law.
For if the decision is wholly unreasonable, injustice will follow."
7. Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the respondent was an application for recall of the Order dated 2.9.2003 and not for review. In Asit Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2009(1) SCR 469, this Court made a distinction between recall and review which is as under:-
6. "There is a distinction between ...... a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition, the Court considers on merits whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party.
7. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singth & Ors. [2007(11) SCC 374] cancelling certain licences was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences."Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined Considering the above judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has simply considered the distinction between the recall and review. In none of the matters, it can be said that order which is now sought to be recalled was challenged before the highest forum and was confirmed by the highest forum and thus, order attained finality. 6.7 The another contention, which is sought to be canvassed that when the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal in limine, even then, the proceeding for recall can be filed. I found no merit in such submission as Supreme Court has, after hearing the party and considering the submission, thought it fit to dismiss the petition and also also considered the fact that looking to the huge amount is involved in the present petition and with a view to giving proper time to the present petitioner, the Supreme Court has directed to comply with the direction of the trial court within three months from the date of the order. Instead of complying with that direction, the petitioner is filing present application, which is essentially for review of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025, which is prima facie found an Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined attempt to misuse the process of law though the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. Hence, no relief can be granted in favour of the present petitioner. It transpires that the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings by filing one proceeding after another whether such proceedings have any substance or not, with a view to shrug off from the liability which is fastened by the judgment of the trial court and also in view of the direction of the learned Sessions Court, which is confirmed by the impugned judgment passed by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2025 in Special Criminal Application No.30 of 2025 and that order is also confirmed by dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal. Therefore, filing of the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
6.8 It is also relevant to note that once the Court has already exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., such application under the guise of recalling of the order, even considering the Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., such exercise is not permissible. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Smt. Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal and Another reported in AIR Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined 1981 SC 736 had discussed the scope of Section 362 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, which is required to be considered at this stage of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that filing of the present application for recalling of the order is nothing but an abuse of process of law by the present petitioner and with a view to frustrate the proceedings initiated by the original complainant, which is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for recovery of huge money, which is now more than Rs.9 crores as on today. Therefore, considering the fact that in the relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court also, the Apex Court has observed that when the Courts come across such litigation where the litigant is trying to abuse the process of law with a view to curb such frivolous litigation and also with a view to discourage such unscrupulous litigants, the Court should impose heavy cost on such litigants.
6.9 It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another vs. Jagdeep Singh reported in (2023) 14 SCC 122, more particularly, paras 21 and 22 Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined are relevant, which are reproduced as under:
"21. In the case in hand, the civil suit was filed on 1.10.2003 by the Respondent challenging the demand of additional price. Judgment of this Court in Sanjay Gera's case was delivered on 22.02.2005. Despite this fact being in knowledge of the Appellants, the suit was contested and the same was decreed on 19.08.2008. The matter did not end here, appeal was preferred by the appellant before the First Appellate Court and on failure even before the High Court and thereafter before this Court. For the aforesaid reasons and wasting the time of the Courts at different levels, we deem it appropriate to burden the Appellants with cost of ₹1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
22. In addition, the Respondent having been dragged in unnecessary litigation upto this Court deserves to be awarded cost of ₹1,00,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court50,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the Appellants from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for filing appeal at different levels despite being covered by judgment of this Court."
6.10 It is also fruitful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Another vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and Others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 496, more particularly, paras 12 to 15.4 are relevant, which are reproduced as under: Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined "12. This case indicates a blatant abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners not only took the benefit of an order of the High Court granting them one year's time to vacate the premises but obtained a further extension of a period of four months to vacate. The petitioners then filed a Review Petition before the High Court and moved another application, this time seeking an extension of five years to vacate the premises. The time of the High Court and, unfortunately, of this Court as well had to be devoted to a thoroughly frivolous proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners in fact sought to urge that as a result of the judgment of the City Civil Court, the petitioners have been deprived of establishing that their status as licensees fructified into a tenancy with effect from 1 February 1973.
Quite apart from the fact that such a plea would not be open to the petitioners in the background of what has been observed earlier, we find even on merits that the submission requires only be stated to be rejected. We have extracted in the earlier part of this judgment the specific finding of the Trial Court based on the admissions of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners that the premises were granted to them on the basis of a conducting agreement. Besides this, in the earlier proceeding that was instituted in the Small Causes Court, it was found that the premises have been granted under a conducting agreement and there was no relationship of licensor and licensee. That being the position, the petitioners would not acquire status as tenants with effect from 1 February 1973, there being no licence in their favour.
Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined
13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth.
14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.
15. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions but while doing so, direct that:
5.1 the petitioners shall vacate the premises on or before 7 March 2017;Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined 15.2 In case the petitioners fail to vacate the premises by the date indicated in (i) above, they shall expose themselves to civil and criminal consequences under the law; 15.3 The petitioners shall pay all arrears for use of the premises computed at the rate fixed in the order of this Court dated 28 August 2015 within four weeks; and 15.4 The petitioners shall pay costs quantified at Rs 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) to the respondents within two months."
6.11 Considering the amount involved in subject matter of the present petition and considering the conduct of applicant by considering the fact that the petitioner is filing one application after another, and also the order, which is now sought to be recalled which is rather confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal, instead of complying with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner has filed present proceeding and, therefore, this Court by taking serious view of the matter and by considering the conduct of the present petitioner, it is a fit case to impose exemplary heavy cost on the petitioner, who has tried to misuse the machinery of law by filing one proceeding after another with a view to defeat the ultimate claim. Therefore, Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8571/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined looking into the amount involved in subject matter of the present application, this Court considers that it is a fit case to impose cost of Rs.5 lakhs upon the present applicant for filing such frivolous litigation. Out of total Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs shall be paid to the original complainant and Rs.1.5 lakhs shall be deposited before the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Law Library and remaining Rs.1.5 lakhs shall be deposited before the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Authority. The said amount shall be paid/deposited within time of 30 days from today and receipts of the same shall be produced before the Registry of this Court within a period of 30 days from today. It is open for the Registry that if the amount of cost is not deposited within the time, the Registry may place the matter for further appropriate order.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is dismissed with above-mentioned cost imposed on the applicant.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 02:04:03 IST 2025