Delhi High Court
Sujata Gupta vs Uma Gupta on 25 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No.453/2014
% 25th July, 2014
SUJATA GUPTA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchi Kohli, Mr. Yash Mishra,
Mr. Nirmal Goenka and Ms.Chandni
Goyal, Advocates.
VERSUS
UMA GUPTA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. There are some litigants who are persistent in abuse of the process of
law. This petition is filed by one petitioner who is a defendant in the suit for
possession and who insists on flaunting orders which have been passed by
different learned Single Judges of this Court directing early disposal of the
suit for possession by filing frivolous applications causing delay in the
disposal of the suit.
CM(M) 453/2014 Page 1 of 6
2. Firstly, I must state that one petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India cannot be filed against various orders dated 3.12.2013,
20.7.2013 and 3.4.2014 because in one petition separate orders cannot be
challenged arising out of dismissal of different applications. First
application under Section 151 CPC to stay the suit was dismissed by the first
order dated 20.7.2013. Again another application was filed under Section 10
CPC for similar relief which was dismissed by the second order dated
03.12.2013. The third order dated 3.4.2014 is the order by which the review
application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the orders dated 3.12.2013
and 20.7.2013 has been dismissed.
3. Before turning to the merits, I would state that with respect to interim
orders which were passed in the suit, petitions were filed in this Court. In
these petitions, directions have been issued by this Court for early disposal
of the suit. One such order is the order passed about more than 4 years back
on 27.10.2010 in CM(M) 1004/10 titled as Uma Gupta Vs. Sujata Gupta &
Anr. and this order reads as under:
"The status report is received from the trial court. The same is
perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after some arguments
wants to withdraw the petition and requests that direction be issued
to the learned trial court for expeditious disposal of the matter.
CM(M) 453/2014 Page 2 of 6
The status report sent by the learned trial court shows that the case
is now listed for the respondent/defendant's evidence and two dates
are given for the said purpose. It is hoped that the trial court will
expedite the hearing in the matter and will dispose it of at the
earliest. The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn."
4. Another order is an order dated 12.5.2011 passed in CM(M) No.
1399/2010 filed by the present petitioner and which was disposed of in terms
of the following order:-
"The challenge by means of this petition is to the impugned order dated
7.10.2010 which closed the right of the petitioner of cross-examination
of the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff. Purely as humanitarian
consideration, counsel for the respondent agrees that one last final
opportunity, subject to costs, may be granted and if that opportunity is
not utilized, the petitioner should have no further opportunity.
Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs.12,500/-, let the Trial
Court fix a date for cross-examination of PW1 to Pw4 and it is made
clear that if the cross-examination is not completed on that date or any
further date which the Trial Court grants, or for any reason whatsoever
any request for adjournment is made on behalf of the petitioner in the
Trial Court, the right of cross-examination given by today's order will
stand closed. I am informed that before the Trial Court case is already
listed on 18.7.2011. Let this date be the first date on which cross-
examination of PW1 to PW4 can be commenced. The petitioner will
summon PW3 and PW4, who are official witnesses for the date fixed for
their cross-examination. Petitioner agrees to cooperate so as to bring
about expeditious disposal of the suit. With the aforesaid observations,
the petition stands disposed of.
Petitioner to file appropriate application before the Trial Court
pursuant to the present order so that the witnesses can be summoned and
the present order can be brought to the notice of the Trial Court. Dasti."
5. The third order is passed in CM(M) No. 457/2014 on 5.5.2014 and
which reads as under :-
CM(M) 453/2014 Page 3 of 6
"The petitioner is aggrieved by slow progress of the suit. He
requests that the direction be issued to the Trial Court to dispose
off the suit in the time-bound manner.
Counsel for a vigilant respondent appears upon intimation
and submits that no dilatory tactics have ever been adopted by the
respondent and will not be resorted to. She submits that the
respondent has been and would promptly assist the Court on each
date. It is stated that only three or four more witnesses of the
defendants are required to be examined. This will be completed in
three months whereafter the Trial Court would endeavour to dispose
off the suit by the end of this year. The petition is disposed off in the
above terms."
6. A reference to the above orders shows that despite repeated directions
of this Court, the suit is not progressing to culmination on account of
dilatory tactics being appointed by the present petitioner/defendant in filing
one application after another.
7. The illegal persistence of the petitioner/defendant is clear from the
fact that repeatedly the same prayer is made for stay of the suit, although
there exist earlier orders declining such a prayer and which orders have
become final. No doubt, a litigant has a right to approach the court, but the
right is to approach the court on valid grounds and not by means of frivolous
petitions, and which are in fact part of strategy to delay the disposal of the
suit and which is against the specific and repeated directions of this Court.
8. If this Court takes this petition as a challenge to the impugned order
dated 20.7.2013, the same is not only barred by delay and laches but also for
CM(M) 453/2014 Page 4 of 6
the reason that a similar application with the same relief was dismissed by
the trial court on 3.12.2013. If we take the present petition as a challenge to
the impugned order dated 3.12.2013, the challenge cannot be because the
same prayer which was made was already declined in an earlier application
which was dismissed on 20.7.2013. If we take this petition as a challenge to
the order dated 3.4.2014, the challenge is not maintainable in view of the
finality achieved to the earlier orders dated 20.7.2013 and 3.12.2013 which
clearly hold that there is no law which directs stay of an earlier filed civil
suit in a civil court merely because subsequently a case is filed under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
9. The aforesaid facts show that petitioner/defendant is deliberately
causing delay in progressing of the suit and not complying with the earlier
orders directing early disposal of the suit, and therefore this petition being a
gross abuse of the process of law is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- and
which costs shall be paid as a condition precedent by the
defendant/petitioner to pursue her defence in contesting the case in the trial
court.
10. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that he does not press
the petition and petitioner will not in any manner cause any delay in disposal
CM(M) 453/2014 Page 5 of 6
of the suit including by filing of applications, and therefore, the judgment
already passed above is recalled and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn
subject to the undertaking taken of the petitioner through her counsel on
record that no further delay will be caused in the trial of the suit by the
petitioner/defendant.
JULY 25, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
