Delhi High Court
Jagmohan Singh Bagga vs Mr. Shiam Narain Sharma on 30 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 456/2014
% 30th July, 2014
JAGMOHAN SINGH BAGGA .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sadaf, Advocate
VERSUS
MR. SHIAM NARAIN SHARMA ....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM(M) 456/2014 & CM 7887/2014(stay)
1. There are some cases which defy even the expression "gross
abuse of the process of law". This petition is one such petition. Challenge
by this petition is to the order of the First Appellate Court dated 22.02.2014
by which the first appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of the
orders passed by the Court at the time of issuing of notice in the appeal for
depositing the arrears of rent payable. The facts of this case are very stark
and all of them have been stated in the impugned order, but some of the said
facts, I am stating herein below.
CM(M) 456/2014 Page 1 of 6
2. The first appellate court at the time of issuing of notice in the
appeal by an order dated 23.05.2012 imposed a condition on the present
petitioner, appellant before the First Appellate Court, to deposit arrears of
rent for the period from 01.09.2004 to 31.01.2005 and damages/mesne
profits from 01.09.2004 to 31.01.2006. Arrears of rent was to be paid at the
rate of Rs.4250/- per month and for different periods, the damages/mesne
profits were to be paid at the rate of Rs.4,750/- per month, Rs.5,300/- per
month, Rs.5,900/- per month, Rs.6,600/- per month and Rs.7,350/- per
month.
3. This conditional order issuing notice in the appeal was not
complied with and instead a review application was filed on the next date, i.e
23.08.2012. This review application was dismissed by the order dated
10.09.2012, however, time was extended for compliance of the order dated
23.05.2012 for deposit of arrears of rent.
4. Till 29.09.2012, there was no compliance, and further extension
of two weeks as final opportunity was granted making it clear that the appeal
otherwise would liable to be dismissed without further orders.
5. The appellant did not stop there and filed effectively another
review application and hence the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution
CM(M) 456/2014 Page 2 of 6
vide order dated 24.11.2012 due to repeated non-compliance of the order
dated 23.05.2012.
6. The petitioner then approached this Court in CM(Main)
No.266/2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn noting that the petitioner
herein, appellant in the First Appeal, had accepted the order dated
23.05.2012 directing deposit of rent and mesne profits, and so an
opportunity was granted for complying the said order. The petitioner was
directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 03.04.2013 and it was
only subject to complying of the order of deposit and subject to being there
"no objection" from the respondent that the order dated 23.05.2012 was to
be set aside.
7. Thereafter, before the first appellate court, no one appeared on
03.04.2013, 18.04.2013 and 01.05.2013. On 01.05.2013, the time granted
by the High Court for compliance had already expired and extension was not
availed by the petitioner/appellant and consequently, the First Appellate
Court had become functus officio in terms of the directions passed by a
learned Single Judge in CM (Main) No.266/2013.
8. There were subsequent hearings, and ultimately on 24.09.2013,
it was found that the petitioner/appellant had not complied with the orders
CM(M) 456/2014 Page 3 of 6
for deposit of entire amount of arrears, he having deposited only Rs.72,000/-
against the dues of Rs.5,67,000/-.
9. The first appellate court in the impugned order notes that it is
not understood as to how appellant/petitioner can claim that balance was
only Rs.72,000/- after adjusting security of Rs.40,000/- and seeking to
deposit only Rs.32,250/-. This aspect is stated in the following portion of
the impugned order dated 22.02.2014 :-
"A bare look at the table prepared in the detailed
original Order dated 23.05.2012 of this Court, it is not
understandable as to on what basis, the appellant arrived
at a sum of Rs. 72,000/- and after adjusting security of
Rs. 40,000/-, he could submit that just by a mere deposit
of payment of Rs. 32,250/- for the entire period starting
from 01.02.2006 till date, he had complied with the
Order.
The admitted rates of rent had been taken into
account and going by the said rates even in the first year
i.e. from 01.02.2006 till 31.01.2007, the total rent would
have been derived somewhere at Rs. 57,000/- for the first
year itself i.e. 4750X12, for the second year, it would
have come to Rs. 63600/- i.e. 5300X12, from 01.02.2007
to 31.01.2008, for the third year i.e. 01.02.2008 to
31.01.2009, it would have come to Rs. 70,800/- i.e.
5900X12, for the fourth year i.e. 01.02.2009 to
31.01.2010, it would have come to Rs. 79,200/- i.e.
6600X12, and lastly for the period from 01.02.2010 till
date, it would have come to Rs. 3,52,800/- i.e 7350X48,
CM(M) 456/2014 Page 4 of 6
and as such, the total amount is Rs. 6,23,400/- as on
22.02.2014.
It hardly needs be said that the appellant has been
non- challent/disobedient and indifferent to the Orders
not only of this Court, but of the Hon'ble High Court, and
has not even bothered to comply even with any
substantial portion even of the said Order, but is simply
enjoying the suit property without even paying any rent.
Since the original Order of the Court and the
Order dated 12.03.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court have
not been complied with nor the Order dated 20.05.2013,
it was to be assumed that the appeal was no longer being
pressed by the petitioner/appellant herein and the appeal
was to be disposed off accordingly.
It is a matter of record that the appeal already
stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide Order dated
24.11.2012 passed by this Court, and it is only against
this order that the JD had filed the petition being CM (M)
No. 266/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court.
As such, the said order dated 24.11.2012 continues
and is revived and nothing remains before this Court as
of today.
The appeal file be returned to the Record Room."
10. Today, counsel for the petitioner states that an adjournment be
granted because the counsel for the petitioner has gone abroad. Counsels
can go abroad but that doesn't mean that counsels can be granted
CM(M) 456/2014 Page 5 of 6
adjournments as of right especially when the petition first came up on
06.05.2014 and was re-notified for today.
11. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner
probably has crossed all limits, even with respect to the expression "abuse of
the process of Courts/Law", and therefore, this petition is dismissed with
costs of Rs.50,000/- to be payable to Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services
Committee within a period of four weeks from today.
List before the Registrar General on 8th September, 2014 for
compliance of the order for deposit of costs. In case the costs are not
deposited, the Registrar General can recover the costs as arrears of land
revenue for being deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services
Committee.
JULY 30, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
sn
