No Litigant Should Be Permitted To Misuse The Process Of Law Through Vexatious Applications: Supreme Court

A Division Bench of the, comprised of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, reprimanded the practice of filling several miscellaneous civil applications (MCA) for seeking review of the judgment passed in Second Appeal. The Court observed that “no litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of law.”

The High Court had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason, the Court said.

The Bench made these observations while deciding an appeal that challenged the legality and validity of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat wherein it allowed sixth subsequent MCA (for recall) in Regular Second Appeal.

Case Background

The appellants run a natural therapy center named ‘Vasant Nature Care Hospital’ and ‘Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust’. The respondent No.1, Ukaji Ramaji (since deceased, through his legal representatives) was employed as a watchman by the appellant trust to take care of the said hospitals. He was given one room to reside for discharging his duties as watchman. Subsequently, the appellant trust had relieved the said Ukaji Ramaji from his duties as he having started indulging in illegal activities.

Ukaji preferred Regular Civil Suit against the appellant seeking declaration that the suit premises were of his ownership. He further also sought permanent injunction for restraining the appellants from interfering with his possession of the suit premises. However, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. When the matter reached High Court in Regular Second Appeal, the same was decided in the favour of present appellants.

Thus, legal heirs of late Ukaji had preferred a SLP before this Court. It is worth mentioning that the SLP was simply dismissed as withdrawn after recording that the present respondents (legal heirs of late Ukaji) intend to file review application before the High Court.

After a period of more than three years, the respondents had preferred the MCA No. 01 of 2016 seeking review of the said judgment in Second Appeal. The said MCA No. 01 of 2016 having been dismissed for want of prosecution, the respondents kept on filing one after the other Miscellaneous Civil Applications i.e., 02 of 2016, 01 of 2017, 01 of 2018 and 01 of 2019. All these applications were dismissed for want of prosecution. However, when MCA No. 03 of 2019, the same was allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order with cost of Rs.15,000/-.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that though the Apex Court had not granted any specific permission to file any application seeking review of the judgment passed in Second Appeal, the respondents had preferred the said MCAs after a period of more than three years. Pertinently, the same were dismissed for want of prosecution.

At this, the Court opined that the High Court without assigning any reason whatsoever and in very casual manner had allowed the said application i.e., MCA (for restoration) No. 03 of 2019. The Court, while dissatisfied with the High Court’s approach held: “The High Court had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason”.

In the light of these facts and circumstances, the Court set aside the impugned order and retained the deposition of costs by the respondents

“In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court to the extent it allowed MCA (for restoration) No. 03 of 2019 in MCA No. 01 of 2019, is set aside, however the respondents shall deposit the cost of Rs.15,000/- as directed by the High Court.”

Case Title: VASANT NATURE CURE HOSPITAL & PRATIBHA MATERNITY HOSPITAL TRUST & ORS. v. UKAJI RAMAJI-SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ANR, 2023INSC825

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 783; 2023INSC825

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment