Scribd
Upload
24 views3 pages

T Arivandandam Vs TV Satyapal and Ors 14101977 SCs770034COM928928

Uploaded by

rahulshinde2071
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views3 pages

T Arivandandam Vs TV Satyapal and Ors 14101977 SCs770034COM928928

Uploaded by

rahulshinde2071
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

MANU/SC/0034/1977

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: AIR1977SC 2421, 1977 INSC 204, 1977()KLT965(SC ), (1977)4SC C 467, [1978]1SC R742, 1977(9)UJ697

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


SLP (C) No. 4483 of 1977
Decided On: 14.10.1977
T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Raja Jaswant Singh and V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P.R. Ramasesh, Adv
Case Note:
Civil - sham litigation - Section 35A and Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 10 of CPC,
1908 - special leave petition out of certain eviction proceedings - in view of
circumstances Apex Court observed that petition was completely frivolous and
vexatious - advocates being officers of justice directed to maintain certain
code of conduct - directed counsel to wholly screen fraudulent and frivolous
litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients - ex-parte order should be
granted after careful analysis of fact - Judge should not succumbs to ex-parte
pressure in unmerited cases which results in devaluing judicial process.

JUDGMENT
1. The pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a
role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.
2. Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking
for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory
application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who
is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decrees with
judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative
caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to
survive. The contempt power of the Court is meant for such persons as the present
petitioner. We desist from taking action because of the sweet reasonableness of counsel
Sri Ramasesh.
3 . What is the horrendous enterprise of the petitioner? The learned Judge has, with a
touch of personal poignancy, judicial sensitivity and anguished anxiety, narrated the
sorry story of a long-drawn out series of legal proceedings revealing how the father of
the petitioner contested an eviction proceeding, lost it, appealed against it, lost again,
moved a revision only to be rebuffed by summary rejection by the High Court. But the
Judge, in his clement jurisdiction, gratuitously granted over six months' time to vacate
the premises. After having enjoyed the benefit of this indulgence the maladroit party
moved for further time to vacate. All these proceedings were being carried on by the
2nd respondent who was the father of the petitioner. Finding that the court's generosity

19-07-2024 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com Rahul Annasaheb Shinde


had been exploited to the full, the 2nd respondent and the petitioner, his son, set upon
a clever adventure by abuse of the process of the court. The petitioner filed a suit
before the Fourth Additional First Munsif, Bangalore, for a declaration that the order of
eviction, which had been confirmed right up to the High Court and resisted by the 2nd
respondent throughout, was one obtained by "fraud and collusion'. He sought an
injunction against the execution of the eviction order. When this fact was brought to the
notice of the High Court, during the hearing of the prayer for further time to vacate,
instead of frowning upon the fraudulent stroke, the learned Judge took pity on the
tenant and persuaded the landlord to give more time for vacating the premises on the
basis that the suit newly and sinisterly filed would be withdrawn by the petitioner.
Gaining time by another five months on this score, the father and son belied the hope
of the learned Judge who thought that the litigative skirmishes would come to an end,
but hope can be dupe when the customer concerned is a crook.
4. The next chapter in the litigative acrobatics of the petitioner and father soon followed
since they were determined to dupe and defy the process of the court to cling on to the
shop. The trick they adopted was to institute another suit before another Munsif making
a carbon copy as it were of the old plaint and playing upon the likely gullibility of the
new Munsif to grant an ex parte injunction. The 1st respondent entered appearance and
exposed the hoax played upon the court by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
Thereupon the Munsif vacated the order of injunction he had already granted. An appeal
was carried without success. Undaunted by all these defeats the petitioner came to the
High Court in revision and managed to get an injunction over again. The 2nd
respondent promptly applied for vacating the temporary injunction and when the
petition came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Venkata-ramayya, counsel for the
petitioner submitted that he should not hear the case, the pretext put forward being that
the petitioner had cutely mentioned the name of the Judge in the affidavit while
describing the prior proceedings. The unhappy Judge, who had done all he could to
help the tenant by persuading the landlord, found himself badly betrayed. He adjourned
the case to the next day. The torment he underwent is obvious from his own order
where he stated. "I spent a sleepless night yesterday." Luckily, he stabilised himself the
next day and heard arguments without yielding to the bullying tactics of the petitioner
and impropriety of his advocate. He went into the merits and dismissed the revision. Of
course, these fruitless proceedings in the High Court did not deter the petitioner from
daring to move this Court for special leave to appeal.
5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse
of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the
statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that
the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of
the mercies of the law in receiving plaints.
The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful -- not formal -- reading of
the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to
see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing
by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the
answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on
examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation cam be shot down at the
earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Ch. XI)
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

19-07-2024 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com Rahul Annasaheb Shinde


dangerous to be too good."
6 . The trial Court in this case will remind itself of Section 35-A, C.P.C. and take
deterrent action if it is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and
altogether groundless. In any view, that suit has no survival value and should be
disposed of forthwith after giving an immediate hearing to the parties concerned.
7. We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the learned Judge of the High Court by a
callous party. We more than regret the circumstance that the party concerned has been
able to prevail upon one lawyer or the other to present to the court a case which was
disingenuous or worse. It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if
counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by
dubious clients. And remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to
society not to collaborate in shady actions. The Bar Council of India, we hope will
activate this obligation. We are constrained to make these observations and hope that
the co-operation of the Bar will be readily forthcoming to the Bench for spending
Judicial time on worthwhile disputes and avoiding the distraction of sham litigation such
as the one we are disposing of. Another moral of this unrighteous chain litigation is the
gullible grant of ex parte orders tempts gamblers in litigation into easy courts. A judge
who succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases helps devalue the judicial
process. We must appreciate Shri Ramasesh for his young candor and correct advocacy.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

19-07-2024 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com Rahul Annasaheb Shinde

You might also like