Playing trick or applying stratagem in court of law will attract penalty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said an interim order which got merged with the final order cannot be the basis of filing repeated writ petitions as it raised the cost imposed upon a party for vexatious litigation.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar emphasised the proceedings in the court of law are initiated for adjudication of disputes and to provide justice to the parties, by which trust and confidence of the litigants reposed on the judiciary can be maintained. 

In case one of the parties misused the said process or attempted to obtain an order by trick and stratagem, the courts would be justified in imposing the costs for igniting such vexatious litigation, the court said.

The court enhanced the cost imposed by the Allahabad High Court upon appellant, Leelawati, who claimed to owner of a property in her dispute with the opposite party, termed as tenant.

Having noted the facts of the matter, the court said the sum of Rs 20,000 imposed by the High Court was meagre, which deserved to be increased to Rs 50,000.

In the case, a suit was initially filed seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide need by appellant which was decreed by the prescribed authority under the Rent Act. 

However, on filing the rent appeal by tenant, it was allowed for the reason that in a suit based on bona fide need, ownership has not been proved by the landlord. 

The landlord then filed a writ petition assailing the order.

While entertaining the writ petition, the High Court passed an interim order on September 22, 2006. It directed for payment of Rs 2000 per month as enhanced rent from September 2006. It also observed that in case of default in payment of enhanced current rent, the landlord can get the possession of the suit premises with the help of police after serving notice of one month. 

Even though the appellant alleged that the enhanced rent had not been paid, the High Court finally dismissed the writ petition on December 05, 2012. 

The High Court then observed that the order of the appellate authority in rent appeal did not reflect any perversity. It also said, in a limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there was no ground to interfere in the order of rent appeal. The High Court also vacated the interim order.

As per the interim order of September 22, 2006 and till dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant could not get the possession. Therefore, she filed a writ petition which was disposed of by order on November 26, 2013. 

As per the order of September 22, 2006 due to default in payment of the current enhanced rent, direction to take possession could not be fructified. On submitting representation to the police personnel, no action was taken. Thus, appellant filed another writ petition in 2015 which came to be dismissed with the cost.       

After hearing counsel, including advocate Dushyant Parashar for one of the respondents, the bench said, "We are compelled to observe that, on dismissal of the writ petition, interim order if any, passed in the proceedings would merge with the final order."

In other words, the court pointed out, on dismissal of the writ petition on December 05, 2012, the interim order of September 22, 2006 had merged in the final order and lost its efficacy. 

"As such, the action of the appellant persuading the court by filing the writ petition does not seem bona fide. The High Court, in our view, has rightly deprecated the action of the appellant to approach High Court again and again for implementation of the interim order passed in the dismissed writ petition lacks bona fides of petitioner and imposition of cost is fully justified," the bench said.

The court also said the petitioner has proceeded to pursue the vexatious claim even before this court. It directed the petitioner to deposit the costs before the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Allahabad within a period of three months.

The court finally dismissed the appeal filed by Leelawati (dead) through the legal representatives against the Allahabad High Court's order, which has rejected a writ petition with the cost.