Punjab-Haryana High Court
Atma Ram vs Varun Kumar on 4 September, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
CR-5076-2024 (O&M) ds:
SO2 4 PHRGe T5385.
131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-5076-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.09.2024
AtmaRam 7 ae Petitioner
versus
Varun Kumar ae Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
KK
Present :- Mr. Yogesh Kumar Aneja, Advocate and
Mr. Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
2K 2k 3
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (QRAL)
1 Challenge is to order dated 05.07.2024 (Annxure P-5)
passed by Additional Session Judge, Fazilka whereby application filed
by the petitioner seeking restoration of appeal which was dismissed in
default, stands rejected.
2 Against petitioner-defendant in the suit a decree of recovery
of Rs.9,30,000/- along with interest dated 17.05.2018 was passed.
Petitioner preferred appeal after delay of 4 4 years before the District
Judge, Fazilka under Section 96 of the CPC. Petitioner successfully
kept appeal pending without affixing any Court fee for 14 months. The
petitioner did not make deficiency in the Court fee good despite
repeated opportunities. On 24.01.2024 the petitioner opted not to
appear, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed in default on account of
non-appearance of the petitioner.
POOJA SHARMA
2024.09.13 18:03
CR-5076-2024 (O&M) 2s:
SO2Z4- PHAR TS35
3 Petitioner is before this Court against the said order.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner deserves to press
appeal on merits. He be granted opportunity by setting aside impugned
order which has been passed on single default.
4 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have
gone through records of the case.
Appellate Court in impugned order observed that :-
6,
XXX XXX XXX
applicant Atma Ram filed said appeal against judgment and
decree dated 05.11.2022 and the matter was registered as Civil
Miscellaneous for consideration on the application for
condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act.
However, the court fees was also deficient and since filing of
appeal on 05.11.2022 till matter being dismissed in default, on
24.01.2024, despite repeated directions and grant of last
opportunity, court fees was not filed."
5 The conduct of the petitioner is evident. He filed appeal
after delay of almost 4 % years. He failed to pay the Court fee for more
than 14 months despite repeated opportunities. On grant of last
opportunity he started playing hide and seek with the Court. He opted
not to appear. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. This
Court finds that a deliberate attempt has been made by the petitioner to
6 Supreme Court while dealing with issue of litigants abusing
process of law while dealing with proceedings under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC in T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal, 1977(4) SCC 467 held
CR-5076-2024 (O&M) 3:
"y, XXX XXX XXX
An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The
trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at
the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the
earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also resourceful
enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them. In
this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George
Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma
Gandhi :
"It is dangerous to be too good."
Similar sentiments were echoed by Apex Court in
S.P.Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs.,
(1994) 1 SCC 1:-
"7 XXX XXX XXX
The courts of law are meant for imparting justice
between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come
with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often
than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-
grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and _ other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court -
process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely.
We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based
on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
In view of above, this Court finds that conduct of the
petitioner merits no indulgence.
9 Revision petition stands dismissed.
(PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
04.09.2024
Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
