If Parties Attempt To Obtain Order By Trick, Courts Can Impose Costs For Vexatious Litigation : Supreme Court

In a recent case, the Supreme Court criticized a litigant for filing multiple petitions before the High Court while concealing the dismissal of an earlier petition. Dismissing the appeal, the Court justified the imposition of costs, and increased the penalty to ₹50,000, emphasizing that such measures are essential to deter frivolous and vexatious litigation.

If the parties misuse the process and attempt to obtain an order by "trick and strategem", the Courts would be justified in imposing the costs for igniting such vexatious litigation, the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar heard the case where the Appellant had preferred an appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision dismissing a petition filed by him with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- for filing a vexatious petition.

Briefly put, the Appellant filed an eviction suit against her tenant on bona fide need grounds, which was initially decreed in her favor but later overturned by the Appellate Court due to lack of ownership proof. She then challenged this in the Allahabad High Court which issued an interim order in 2006 directing the tenant to pay ₹2,000 per month or face eviction. However, the petition was dismissed in 2012, vacating the interim order.

Despite this, she filed another petition seeking police assistance for eviction, which was disposed of with directions to authorities. When no action followed, she filed yet another petition i.e., third one which was dismissed with a ₹20,000 cost for concealing the previous dismissal and misleading the court by relying on the expired 2006 interim order.

Against this dismissal, she approached the Supreme Court.

Justifying the dismissal, the Court noted that the appellant had misused the judicial process by filing multiple petitions and concealing material facts. The Court observed that the interim order of 2006 had merged with the final order of dismissal and could no longer be relied upon to file another writ petition seeking a direction to the authorities for eviction with police assistance.

The Court reasoned that once the Petition in which the interim order of 2006 was passed was dismissed then another petition cannot be filed seeking compliance of the interim order because the interim order lacks enforceability after the dismissal of writ petition.

Thus, the Court held that the filing of the third writ petition was not necessitated and was only a vexatious and frivolous litigation just to mislead the court to gain a favourable order upon suppressing material fact about the dismissal of the first Writ Petition.

The Court held that such conduct amounted to abuse of the judicial process and justified the imposition of exemplary costs.

“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, on dismissal of the writ petition on 05.12.2012, the interim order dated 22.09.2006 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 7 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 court observed.

“It is necessary to observe that 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 this great institution can be maintained. In case one of the parties misuse the said process or attempt to obtain an order by trick and strategem, the Courts would be justified in imposing the costs for igniting such vexatious litigation. In our view, the cost imposed by the High Court in a sum of Rs.20,000/- is meagre, which deserves to be increased to Rs.50,000/-, as the petitioner has proceeded to pursue his vexatious claim even before this Court. Said costs shall be deposited before the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Allahabad.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: LEELAWATI (DEAD) THR. LRS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 321

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sharad Prakash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Jha, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR