Frivolous Litigations Can Be Put To End At Any Stage: Delhi High Court While Dismissing Vegetable Vendor's Plea
Observing that the judicial institution is grappling with huge pendency due to frivolous litigations, the Delhi High Court has said that an endeavour must be made by courts to dismiss the same on the very first date without any further delay.Adding that such frivolous litigations should be "nipped in the bud", Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further observed that courts do not have the luxury...
Observing that the judicial institution is grappling with huge pendency due to frivolous litigations, the Delhi High Court has said that an endeavour must be made by courts to dismiss the same on the very first date without any further delay.
Adding that such frivolous litigations should be "nipped in the bud", Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further observed that courts do not have the luxury to continue with such cases, which are frivolous on its face "merely because certain procedural motions have to undergo."
"If, for some reasons, such orders are not initially passed in a frivolous litigation, nothing stops the Court to put an end to such an ordeal at any stage," the court said.
It was also observed that court must ensure that illegal and unauthorized litigants may not be given an opportunity to misuse or abuse the judicial process. "The Court has to bear in mind that many honest litigants and bona fide claim remain pending and the system is clogged by frivolous litigations and mischievous litigants," the court said.
Justice Sharma also opined where the petitioner failed to assert his right, claim, title or interest or there is no pleading or assertions, there would be no purpose of continuing with such a trial.
"In this regard, the Court is also to see the purity of the litigation pending before it. The relief of injunction is a relief of equity. One who claims equity must come with clean hands," the court added.
The court thus dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order dated August 31, 2017 whereby the trial court had dismissed a suit filed by the petitioner (plaintiff).
The petitioner, who has been selling vegetables in a bye-lane outside a shop in city's Azadpur mandi, had filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against various private respondents and the APMC against forcible dispossession.
The Trial court had directed Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), one of the defendants, to remove every illegal encroachment existing within the premises of Azad Pur Mandi within two weeks.
The Trial Court also noted that in the entire plaint, the petitioner failed to specify that whether he was a license holder by APMC or in any manner authorized to deal at the place. It was also observed that the petitioner had not filed any document in support of his assertions.
In appeal before High Court, the petitioner argued that after the issues were framed and the case was at the stage of evidence, the Trial Court should not have have dismissed the suit. It was added that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to lead evidence to prove his case.
Dismissing the plea, the court observed that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, it has to be seen that the lower court had exceeded the jurisdiction in any manner.
"This Court has also to take into account that whether the person, who has approached the Court and asserted his claim has actually any claim, right, title or interest," the court said while upholding the impugned order.
Title: RAJAN KUMAR v. LAJJA DEVI & ORS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1015