Repetitive and unnecessary litigations will attract fines: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Filing similar petitions repeatedly with alterations for a favorable outcome will not be exercised and would attract fines and punishment for wasting the judicial time amid the pandemic. Punjab & Haryana High Court gave the decision in the case of Vijay Lata vs. Rajiv Arora [CRM-M-43025-2020] presided over by the single bench of Hon’ble Justice Alka Sarin.
In the above-cited case, the appellant approached the court for the fifth time for seeking the same relief under the same provisions of law by cleverly re-wording some portions of her petition. Court noted that the present petition was vaguely drafted and the petitioner tried to conceal all the previous orders passed by the Trials courts or the other High courts.
It was observed that Petitioner was expelled from Kurukshetra University from the designation of a lecturer and therefore, she challenged her termination by filing CWP No.1986 of 1993 in the trial court, which eventually got dismissed. The petitioner again filed a petition for recalling the order, which again got dismissed. Petitioner then decided to move to the Supreme Court and challenged both the dismissed orders. But her SLP was again dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Suit No.186 of 1994 seeking a decree of declaration and a consequential decree of the mandatory injunction to the effect that her services should not have been terminated and that she should be reinstated, challenging therein also the appointment of Naresh Kumar in her place.
The HC bench observed that none of the previously passed judgments or decrees were attached to the present petition. And when she couldn’t be successful on the civil side, the petitioner then set in motion a series of proceedings on the criminal side. Appeals were made u/s 340 CrPC on 17-12-20. HC stated, “A perusal of the above-narrated facts would make it clear that the petitioner has already unsuccessfully knocked on the doors of this Court several times by invoking the provisions of Section 340 CrPC”.
Later HC contended that “The present proceedings must be labeled as nothing more than an abuse of the process of the Court particularly in view of the fact that with respect to the same subject-matter several similar petitions had already been filed by the petitioner against this very respondent which were all dismissed. The earlier orders passed by this Court declining any relief to the petitioner in her petitions filed under Section 340 CrPC still hold good and have not been set aside by the Supreme Court”.
Referring to the previous judgments in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) 2 SCC 42] HC noted that there was no justifiable reason to entertain the present petition. The court said that because the petitioner had concealed all the past orders in the present petition, she didn’t come to court with clean hands.
HC contended that “It is well settled that litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts, such litigants have come with unclean hands and are not entitled to relief”.
And hence, the HC bench decided to dismiss the petition of the woman with a fine of Rs 25000/- because she moved to the High Court and Subordinate Courts repeatedly in several rounds of litigation for the same matter.