Rakesh Pandey vs Kuljeet Singh Kochar & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 822 Del

 *                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               C.M. (Main) No.207 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos.2655-2656 of 2010

%                                                                                 11.02.2010

         RAKESH PANDEY                                              ......Petitioner
                                         Through: Mr. Pranav Puri, Advocate.

                                             Versus

         KULJEET SINGH KOCHAR & ORS.                   ......Respondents
                             Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, standing counsel for
                                      MCD.

                                                           Date of Order: 11th February, 2010

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                   J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 3rd February, 2010

whereby an application of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC was dismissed by the

trial court. By this application, the petitioner wanted the court to restore a suit earlier

dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner had made a

statement before the court on 16th December, 2009 to the following effect :-

"I have instructions to withdraw the present suit on behalf of the Plaintiff as the same stands satisfied as MCD has taken the action and at present there is no illegal construction or encroachment over the suit property. I may be permitted to withdraw the present suit as the same stands satisfied."

2. After this statement of counsel for the petitioner, the suit was dismissed as

withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter wanted to re-open the case stating that the statement

was made by his counsel in view of the defence taken that there was no illegal

construction nor illegal construction would be put but later on. The petitioner however,

noticed that there was fresh illegal construction made in the premises in connivance with

MCD so, he wanted to get the suit revived. Subsequently, the petitioner changed his

stand and told the court that his counsel was not given instructions to make a statement

for withdrawal of the suit and counsel acted contrary to the instructions. The learned trial

court keeping in view the changing stand taken by the petitioner found that the

application under Section 151 CPC was not maintainable and observed that in case, there

was any fresh illegal construction, the plaintiff was at liberty to file a fresh suit.

3. The present petition and the suit seems to be gross misuse of judicial process. The

petitioner first withdrew the suit against illegal constructions going on in his

neighbourhood. It is not known what transpired between the petitioner and the defendant

against whom the petitioner had filed the suit and was contesting tooth and nail that

resulted into withdrawal of the suit on behalf of the petitioner. It is possible that the

petitioner had reached at an „understanding‟ with the defendants. It seems that thereafter

when some dispute again arose between the petitioner and the defendant over this

„understanding‟, the petitioner wanted to revive the suit. It is clear that the petitioner was

using the court proceedings as a tool against the defendants and the petitioner in reality

had no grievance against any kind of illegal constructions. I, therefore, dismiss this

petition with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi Legal Services Authority.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

FEBRUARY 11, 2010 'AA'