Delhi High Court
J. P. Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain & Anr on 11 January, 2018
$~8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 11th January, 2018
+ CM(M) 470/2017
J. P. JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
MANOHAR LAL JAIN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shyam Singh Sisodia, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner was the counsel for the plaintiff in civil suit
No.106/2004 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge for and on behalf of
the Society called Jain Sadhvi Panna Charitable Society. The suit for
possession and mandatory injunction was eventually withdrawn and
dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the
defendants by order dated 30.11.2005 by the Civil Judge. By the said
order, the Civil Judge had also considered an application under Order
47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which was
found to be frivolous and, thus, dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- to
be deposited by the plaintiff/applicant in the Prime Minister's Relief
Fund.
2. The statement on the basis of which the suit was dismissed as
withdrawn as said above was made by the petitioner herein, his
particulars having been recorded in that part of the proceedings by the
Civil Judge indicating him to be the plaintiff in the suit which was
factually incorrect. The petitioner was only the counsel for the
plaintiff of the suit and not himself the plaintiff.
3. The defendants of the suit took out execution proceedings,
statedly nine years after the dismissal of the suit, to enforce recovery
of costs. It appears, in the course of the said proceedings they wanted
to proceed against the petitioner, he being the counsel for the plaintiff,
in his individual capacity. It appears that after the prolonged
proceedings the Civil Judge eventually held that the costs could not be
recovered from the counsel. The matter statedly rests there.
4. But, the petitioner remains not satisfied. He filed an application
under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)
seeking criminal action to be initiated on the ground that he had been
illegally and unlawfully made judgment debtor in the execution
proceedings. This application remained pending for quite some time
on the file of the Civil Judge. It was dismissed in default by order
dated 31.07.2015. The petitioner, thereafter moved an application
seeking its restoration, which application was found to be time barred
and, therefore, dismissed. He then moved miscellaneous civil appeal
before the Additional District Judge which was also dismissed.
5. It is the aforesaid order in appeal which is sought to be
challenged by the petition at hand.
6. To say the least, this Court finds petty issues being
unnecessarily prolonged and protracted just for sadistic pleasure. In
the given facts and circumstances, even if the application under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. were to be restored after condonation of delay,
this Court finds hardly any material on which it could be said that it is
expedient or in the interest of justice to direct criminal action to be
initiated in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C.
7. The petition is, thus, dismissed in the hope that the parties will
hereafter not agitate such trivial issues any further.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 11, 2018
vk
