Delhi High Court
Bachan Singh Kumar vs State & Ors on 5 May, 2017
$~33 & 34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 358/1997
BACHAN SINGH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
P.K.Mishra, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Adv. for R-1.
+ FAO 364/1997
BACHAN SINGH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
P.K.Mishra, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
ORDER
% 05.05.2017
CM No.17293/2017 (Exemption) in FAO No. 358/1997
CM No. 17299/2017 (Exemption) in FAO No. 364/1997
Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions.
CMs stand disposed of.
CM No. 17292/2017 (for recall of the order dated 25.2.2014) in FAO No.
358/1997 & CM No. 17298/2017 (for recall of the order dated 25.2.2014)
in FAO No.364/1997
FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 1 of 7
1. These applications are filed by the appellant to recall the order
dated 25.2.2014, by which the appeals were disposed of as not pressed and
time of around 3 years was granted to the applicant/appellant to vacate the
ground floor and first floor of the property bearing no. E-108, East of
Kailash, New Delhi. The order dated 25.2.2014 of which recall is sought
reads as under:-
"1. Both these appeals are dismissed as not pressed as the
counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant states that the
appellant be only granted time to vacate the ground and first floor portion
of the property bearing No.E-108, East of Kailash, New Delhi. This prayer
is made because the appellant does not have any other residential premises
and nor do any of his family members. Also, the other two sons who are
the beneficiaries are living in Germany and Australia and therefore do not
have need of residence of the suit property. Also, the third beneficiary
being the daughter is residing out of Delhi and is staying in her own home
at Jalandhar.
2. In view of the above, appeals are dismissed as not pressed
and the appellant is given time to vacate the ground and first floor of E-
108, East of Kailash, New Delhi on or before 31.12.2016 as the appellant is
more than 80 years of age and therefore requires sufficient amount of time
at this age to arrange for an alternative premises. Appellant will be liable
to pay electricity and water charges with respect to aforesaid premises till
the same are occupied by him.
3. Let the appellant file an undertaking in terms of today's order
within two weeks and on the appellant filing and complying with the terms
of the aforesaid undertaking, the appellant will be entitled to continue to
live in the aforesaid premises till 31.12.2016.
2. As per the statement made in the present applications the
FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 2 of 7
applicant/appellant states that his earlier counsel cheated and defrauded him
by taking signatures on the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 to
vacate the suit premises by 31.12.2016, and which was filed in this Court
pursuant to the order dated 25.2.2014. The applicant/appellant states that he
did not know what he was got made to sign by the earlier counsel Mr. N.
Prabhakar,Advocate. It is stated that the earlier counsel when called upon
only said that the appeal is pending and he did not inform the
appellant/applicant that the appeal stood disposed of by granting time on
25.2.2014. Applicant/appellant also pleads that he has filed a complaint with
the Bar Council against Mr. N. Prabhakar, Advocate, and copy of which is
attached with the present applications.
3. This Court knows that it is Kalyug. Not only it is Kalyug we are
at a deep end in Kalyug. In such age and time surely it is not inconvenient
and unknown for litigants to make totally false allegations against an earlier
counsel that the applicant/appellant was not properly informed, and which is
done for the sake of convenience for seeking the recall of the order dated
25.2.2014 with the same malafide object the complaint against the earlier
counsel is filed in the Bar Council. This Court does not accept anything else
FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 3 of 7
from dishonest litigants and who would go to any lengths to take favourable
orders from the courts.
4. I completely disbelieve and reject the dishonest averments of
the applicant/appellant that he did not know the contents of the order dated
25.2.2014 disposing of the appeals as not pressed and however granting time
to vacate the suit premises of around three years i.e. up to 31.12.2016. The
period from 25.2.2014 till 31.12.2016 is a long period of two years and 10
months. I refuse to believe that a litigant who has contested the case before
the court below as also this Court, and who is admittedly not illiterate in any
sense of the term, and that too being around 80 years of age when the order
dated 25.2.2014 was passed, did not know the contents of the order dated
25.2.2014 till around January 2017. Obviously, the month of January 2017 is
a convenient statement because time to vacate the suit premises expired on
31.12.2016 and which was granted by the order dated 25.2.2014. I may also
note that status of every case of this Court is not only available to be known
by inspection of a court file directly by the litigant, but also the status of a
case is available 24x7 and 365 days of the year on the website of this Court.
Therefore, this Court cannot believe and summarily rejects the completely
FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 4 of 7
false pleading of the applicant/appellant that he did not know the contents of
the order dated 25.2.2014.
5. The present case showing dishonesty of the applicant/appellant is all
the more worse with respect to alleged lack of knowledge of the
appellant/applicant of the contents of the order dated 25.2.2014 inasmuch as
the applicant/appellant has filed pursuant to the order dated 25.2.2014 an
affidavit of undertaking in this Court dated 18.3.2014, and which admittedly
bears the signatures of the applicant/appellant and also duly refers to the
order dated 25.2.2014 thereby undertaking to vacate the suit premises by
31.12.2016. This Court rejects completely the case that the
applicant/appellant did not know the contents of the affidavit of undertaking
dated 18.3.2014 when the appellant/applicant signed the same, and which
stand as stated above is only conveniently stated now in 2017 for filing of
the present applications, and when time to vacate the suit premises has
expired on 31.12.2016.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present applications
being an abuse of the process of law, and which also unfairly
and most maliciously target the earlier Advocate who had appeared for the
FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 5 of 7
applicant/appellant for almost 6 years before the impugned order was passed
on 25.2.2014, and only essentially because the appellant/applicant wants to
dishonestly and malafidely withdraw from the order dated 25.2.2014 and the
affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 duly signed by the
appellant/applicant, hence these applications are dismissed with costs of
Rs.2 lacs and which costs shall be deposited by the applicant/appellant with
Help Age India, C-14 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016. If the
applicant/appellant has money to engage a new advocate that also a Senior
advocate to argue the present dishonest applications seeking recall of the
order dated 25.2.2014, then it is high time that courts should send out a very
strong message to dishonest litigants by imposing heaviest of costs.
7. In addition to imposing of costs, I issue notice to the
applicant/appellant under Section 340 Cr. P.C for falsely denying on oath
the contents of the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 by filing the
present application for recall. The facts of the present case also persuade me
to issue a notice of contempt against the applicant/appellant in spite of the
fact that today the applicant/appellant is 84 years of age because it is high
FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 6 of 7
time that irrespective of age gross dishonesty is taken note of and acted upon
strongly by this Court.
8. Let notice of contempt be issued to the appellant/applicant,
without process fee, through the High Court Process Serving Agency,
returnable on 22nd May, 2017. The process server of High Court Process
Serving Agency will ensure that no efforts are spared to ensure that
appellant/applicant is served of the suo moto contempt notice which is
issued by this Court as also the notice as per this order under Section 340
Cr.P.C.
9. List on 22nd May, 2017.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MAY 05, 2017/ib
FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 7 of 7
