Smt. Shanta Babarao Deshmukh vs Shri Becharbhai Jivabhai Patel ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10052 Bom

                                                                       902-ASIA-3180-2019.DOC




                   Shephali



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3180 OF 2019
                                                       IN
                              CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2018
                                                     WITH
                                     CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2018


                   Shanta Babarao Deshmukh                                      ...Applicant
                        In the matter between
                   Shanta Babarao Deshmukh                                      ...Petitioner
                        Versus
                   Becharbhai Jivabhai Patel & Ors                           ...Respondents


                   Mr Narendra B Deshmukh, for the Applicant.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY             Mr Bhavin R Bhatia, with Abhishek Mishra, Sumeet Pandey & Nirav
MORMARE
                        Karia, for Respondent No. 2.
Digitally signed
by SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
                   Mr Om Suryavanshi, for the MCGM.
Date: 2022.10.03
11:52:29 +0530




                                            CORAM        G.S. Patel &
                                                         Gauri Godse, JJ.

                                            DATED:       30th September 2022
                   PC:-

1. There is an Interim Application No. 3180 of 2019. This seeks restoration of a Civil Reference No. 1 of 2018.

30th September 2022 902-ASIA-3180-2019.DOC

2. A very peculiar situation arises. Mr Suryavanshi, learned Advocate for the MCGM, says that the 1st Respondent, one Becharbhai Jivabhai Patel has expired and his heirs need to be impleaded. Mr Deshmukh for the Applicant refutes this. He does not admit that the 1st Respondent is dead. He is unable to say whether the 1st Respondent is dead or alive. He says that evidence needs to be lead in some appropriate court about this. The death needs to be 'proved'. There is no such evidence, according to him, and he maintains that if notice is to be issued, it should be issued to the 1st Respondent, whether dead or alive. It is impossible to accept this submission, but so as not to waste further time, we allow this Interim Application and restore the so-called Civil Reference. We do so on condition that Mr Deshmukh argues the Civil Reference immediately. He agrees.

3. The Civil Reference is taken up. This attacks (there is no other word for it) an order by a learned single Judge, RG Ketkar J adjourning the Civil Revision Application No. 149 of 2018 "beyond vacation".

4. There is no question of law that arises from such an order. The Civil Reference is therefore without merit.

5. In any case, it turns out that the Civil Revision Application (in which this so-called Civil Reference is purportedly filed) was itself disposed of by an order dated 9th October 2018 by the same learned Judge of this Court, RG Ketkar J, sitting singly.

30th September 2022 902-ASIA-3180-2019.DOC

6. Dissatisfied with that order, the Applicant filed Civil Application No. 648 of 2018, also before a learned single Judge seeking to set aside or reverse the order on the Civil Revision Application. The Civil Application ended with an elaborate order of 27th April 2020 by Dama Seshadri Naidu J. That order comments on the manner in which the litigation unfolded. Paragraphs 1 to 7 of Naidu J's order say:

"Introduction:

This case dismays and disturbs any adjudicator. The applicant's conduct--rather that of her counsel, who happens to be her son, too--sets anybody's teeth on edge, after hearing the arguments. The applicant seems to have been obsessed with only one intent: to litigate until she gets her argument accepted, meritless it may be. To achieve this, no rule or rhyme should come in her way. Should anyone intervene, be it a judge, the applicant does not hesitate to trample upon decency, decorum, or even reputation. We shall soon see that.

2. In the suit filed by the applicant before the Small Cause Court, the defendants plead that one of the defendants is no more; he died long back in the USA. They produce the proof. The erstwhile GPA Holder of the person died affirms that on oath, too. The trial Court rules on it; unsatisfied, the applicant appeals. The Appellate Bench also concurs with the trial Court. Then, the applicant files a Civil Revision Application, ostensibly, under Section 115 of CPC, makes a hue and cry, claims that the issue is of immense importance, demands that the Hon'ble Chief Justice should refer it to a Division Bench or a Full Bench, calls everybody names, and eventually loses the CRA.

30th September 2022 902-ASIA-3180-2019.DOC

3. After losing the CRA, he files a Civil Application, demands this Court to set aside its earlier order, and also wants a Single Judge to declare a co-equal Bench's decision per incuriam. Pending that, not contented, again she goes back to the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, files a similar appeal or application once again and demands a decision, even after this Court's affirming the Appellate Bench's earlier decision on the same issue. She refuses to pay the costs imposed by this Court, threatens the learned presiding judges--all in the name of seeking justice.

4. The tone and the tenor--the incomprehensibility and the cacophony apart--the pleadings running into forty pages demonstrate what pleadings ought not to be. Backdrop:

5. The applicant has filed RAD Suit No.124 of 2006 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, seeking, it seems, a declaration that she is the landlord's subtenant. In that suit, she arrayed five defendants. The 1st defendant was the original owner of the property. The 2nd defendant is a Society comprising the owners and occupants. The 3rd defendant is said to be a developer and chief promoter of the Society. The 4th defendant is another Society. This Society owns the plot on which the tenements were built. So it is termed the Parent Society. The 5th respondent is the Brihanmumbai Corporation.

6. Though the case has many parallel developments, I do not intend to refer to any of them, I confine to the two disputes before me; the second one depends on the survival of the first one. Primarily, the question before me is whether this Civil Application is maintainable. An answer in the affirmative alone, would want me to analyse the merits of the matter. Therefore, I will narrate the facts only to contextualise the case, but not to discuss the merits--once

30th September 2022 902-ASIA-3180-2019.DOC

again.

The Counsel and the Case:

7. Incidentally, the learned counsel for the applicant is none other than her son: Shri Narendra Deshmukh. It was his wont to mention the matter daily. So I took it up for hearing, out of turn. When the arguments began, I repeatedly reminded Shri Deshmukh that he should first convince the Court about the maintainability of CRA. And for that purpose, I wanted him to confine his arguments to that issue. But he went on arguing 'everything under the sun', unrestrained. He argued the whole day, almost. That said, to be fair to Shri Deshmukh, I must say though he was insistent, he had never been disrespectful to the Court. Maybe he was consumed by the fact that the matter concerns his own dwelling. Nevertheless, professional as he has been as a practicing lawyer; he ought to have displayed restraint and balance. I got neither from the learned counsel, however."

(Emphasis added)

7. All this, except the day-long hearing, happens before us as well. We have not the slightest intention of wasting scarce judicial time indulging Mr Deshmukh.

8. The order of Naidu J also notes in paragraph 18 that the Judge wondered how he could legally set aside an order or judgment of a Bench of coordinate strength on merits. This aspect was considered on facts and in law. The Judge also noted that there were constant threats, insinuations, and innuendo. Ultimately, noting that the Court had already imposed costs (RG Ketkar J) on the Applicants, Naidu J noted that though there was sufficient cause to impose

30th September 2022 902-ASIA-3180-2019.DOC

costs, given that costs had been previously imposed he refrain from adding to those financial burden. Naidu J dismissed the Civil Application before him, declining to reverse the order made by Ketkar J in the Civil Revision Application.

9. It is impossible, in these circumstances, to understand how in the guise of this so-called "Civil Reference" the entire matter is sought to be reopened once again. The attempt now is to assail the first order of Ketkar J, which simply adjourned the matter beyond the vacation. There is simply no question of law to be considered.

10. There is no merit in the Civil Reference. It is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and following the view of Naidu J, we impose no costs.

(Gauri Godse, J)                                     (G. S. Patel, J)





                          30th September 2022