Allahabad High Court
Abdul Mabood And Others vs Additional District Judge Room ... on 4 December, 2012
Bench: Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?AFR
Court No. - 14
Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 118 of 2012
Petitioner :- Abdul Mabood And Others
Respondent :- Additional District Judge Room No.2 Sultanpur & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Umesh Chandra Chaurasiya
Respondent Counsel :- Manish Kumar
Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists-petitioners and have gone through the records.
This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash order dated 08.12.2009, passed by opposite party No. 238 (c) in SCC case no. 8 of 1983 (Abdul Latif v. Abdul Rajik), by which the defendants-tenants have moved an application to abate the suit.
In view of death of Smt. Rehana, Smt. Rijwana and Smt. Jebunisha whose substitution application has not been carried out.
The revisionists tenants filed revision before the District Judge bearing SCC revision No. 01 of 2012, by which the impugned order passed by learned District Judge has been confirmed.
Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 1983. The defendants tenants did not submit any information to the Court regarding the death of their clients.
However, in view of the law has laid down in Order 20 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the abatement cannot take effect as has rightly been held by both the two courts below.
Learned Counsel for the revisionists relied upon the law laid down by this court in Kayam Singh v. Board of Revenue [2007 (25) LCD 475], which is not relevant for the purposes of deciding this writ petition. The writ petition has been filed by the tenant with an intention to continue in his possession. The misuse of judicial process by a determined occupant can well be gogged by the fact that the tenant is dragging the landlord, who has filed the suit in the year 1983. From the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition is a camouflage to harass the landlord. It is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants adopts various ways to take recourse of ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation, to defeat the judicial process. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of, and curbed by passing appropriate orders and issuing necessary directions. This case is of sheer abuse of the process of the Court. In Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) by LR v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. [2006 AIR SCW 3549], the Supreme Court has also taken all such litigative acrobatics in the following words;-
".............The attempts of tenants in such matters to protract the litigation indefinitely by raising frivolous and vexatious contentions regarding the compromise and going back on the solemn undertaking given to court, should be deprecated."
In the case of Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. [2003 AIR SCW 7158], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in the following words:-
"Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debtors to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errorson the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system."
Further in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. [AIR 1977 SC 2421], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:-
"The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decrees with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive."
The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merits.
The revision is accordingly dismissed in limine.
However, the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible so as to ensure that it may be decided within a period of thirty days from the receipt/production of a certified copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Sultanpur to ensure that the case be decided, which is pending for the last thirty years.
Order Date :- 4.12.2012
Nitesh
