RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS.versusNIRMALA DEVI & ORS.

                         [2011] 8 S.C.R. 992


\                   RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS.
                                  v.
                       NIRMALA DEVI & ORS.                            /

               (Civil Appeal Nos. 4912-4913 of 2011)
                            JULY 4, 2011
B
      [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

       Administration of justice - Civil litigation - Delay in
  disposal of civil cases/Uncalled for and frivolous litigation -
C Curbing of - Held: Steps to be taken by trial courts while
  dealing with criminal trials - Stated.

        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

        Actual or realistic costs - Determination of - Held:
D Pragmatic realities are to be taken into consideration and
  courts have to be realistic to what the defendants or the
  respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation
  before different courts - Prevalent fee structure of the lawyers
  and other miscellaneous expenses are to be taken into
E consideration - It is to be seen that for how long the
  defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and
  defend the litigation in various courts - On facts, appellants
  harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a
  totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts -
F They a/so wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last
  40 years - Thus, the appeals are dismissed with costs,
  quantified as Rs.2,00,0001- a/ongwith the costs imposed by
  the High Court which is Rs. 75,0001-, payable by the
  appellants to the respondents.
G
         Ex-parte ad interim injunctions - When to be granted -
    Held: The court should grant interim injunction or stay order
    only after hearing the defendants or the respondents - In case
    the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases,

H                                992
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &                  993
                   ORS.

then it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually     A
dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner would pay full
restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits - If an
ex-parte injunction order is granted, then the court should
dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as
may be possible, as soon as the defendant appears in the            B
court - It should be granted only for a short period - If party
obtains an injunction based on false averments and forged
documents, he should be prosecuted.
      Framing of issues - Duty of the court - Held.; Framing
of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation - Due   C
care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by
the Presiding Judge while framing of issues - On facts, the
trial court ought not to have framed an issue on a point which
was finally determined upto this Court - The same was
exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata -              D
Doctrines/Principles.
       'RP' was allotted a house and on humane
 considerations of shelte·r, he allowed his brothers-
 appellants to reside with him. The appellants filed a suit E
 for partition in the year 1977, which was dismissed.
 Thereafter, they filed a Regular First Appeal. During
  pendency, 'RP' filed a suit against the appellants for
  mandatory injunction to remove them and for recovery
  of mesne profits. Meanwhile, 'RP' sold part of his property.
  Thereafter, RFA was dismissed. The Special Leave
                                                               F
  Petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed. The suit
  for mandatory injunction stood revived. Thereafter,
  applications after applications were filed by the
, appellants at every stage raising various claims. The
  issues were framed. Finally, the High Court dismissed the G
  Civil Miscellaneous Petition which was filed in the year
  2010, rendered at the preliminary hearing and imposed
  cost of Rs. 75,0001-. The Review Petition filed
  thereagainst was also dismissed. Thus, the appellants
 filed the instant appeals.                                    H
    994       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A         Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 If the remedial meas!Jres and suggestions
  to improve the aspect of delay in disposal of civil cases
  are implemented in proper perspective, then the present
8 justice delivery system of civil litigation would certainly
  improve to a great extent. [Para 32) (1017-H; 1018-A]

         •Justice, Courts and Delays" by Dr. Arun Mohan -
    referred to.

C      1.2 90% of the time and resources of the Indian
  courts are consumed in attending to uncalled for
  litigation, which is created only because our current
  procedures and practices hold out an incentive for the
  wrong- doer. Those involved receive less than full justice
o and there are many more in the country, in fact, a greater
  number than those involved who suffer injustice
  because they have little access to justice, in fact, lack of
  awareness and confidence in the justice system. In the
  Indian legal system, uncalled for litigation gets
E encouragement because our courts do not impose
  realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and
  defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying
  tactics because the courts do not impose actual or
  realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually
  remains uncompensated in the courts and that operates
F as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants.
  Unless the courts, by appropriate orders or directions
  remove the cause for motivation or the incentives,
  uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there
  will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court
G time and resources will be consumed and justice will be
  both delayed and denied. [Paras 33 and 34) (1018-A-F]

       1.3 Lesser the court's attention towards full
  restitution and realistic costs, which translates as profit
H for the wrongdoer, the greater would be the generation
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &                995
                   ORS.

of uncalled for litigation and exercise of skills for            A
achieving delays by impurity in presentation and
deployment of obstructive tactics. The cost (risk) • benefit
ratio is directly dependent on what costs and penalties
will the court impose on him; and the benefit will come
in as: the other 'succumbing' en route and or leaving a          B
profit for him, or even if it is a fight to the end, the court
still leaving a profit with him as unrestituted gains or
unassessed short levied costs. Litigation perception of
the probability of the other party getting tired and
succumbing to the delays and settling with him and the           c
court ultimately awarding what kind of restitution, costs
and fines against him • paltry or realistic. This perception
ought to be the real risk evaluation. [Paras 35, 36] [1018-
G-H; 1019-A-B]
      1.4 If the appellants had the apprehension of              D
imposition of realistic costs or restitution, then this
litigation perhaps would not have been filed. Ideally,
having lost up to the highest court (2001), the appellants
(defendants in the suit) ought to have vacated the
premises and moved out on their own, but the appellants          E
seem to have acted as most parties do-calculate the cost
(risk)-benefit ratio between surrendering on their own and
continuing to contest before the court. Procrastinating
litigation is common place because, in practice, the courts
are reluctant to order restitution and actual cost incurred      F
by the other side. [Para 37) [1019-C-D]
     1.5 Every lease on its expiry, or a license on its
revocation cannot be converted itself into litigation.
Unfortunately, the courts are flooded with these cases
because there is an inherent profit for the wrong- doers         G
in our system. It is a matter of common knowledge that
domestic servants, gardeners, watchmen, caretakers or
security men employed in a premises, whose status is
that of a licensee indiscriminately file suits for injunction
not to be dispossessed by making all kinds of averments          H
    996      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A and may be even filing a forged document, and then .
  demands a chunk, of money for withdrawing the suit. It
  is happening because it is the general impression that
  even if ultimately unauthorized person is thrown out of
  the premises the court would not ordinarily punish the
B unauthorized person by awarding realistic and actual
  mesne profits, imposing costs or ordering prosecution.
  [Para 38] [1019-E~G; 1020-A]
           1.6 It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of
     flats and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in
C big cities and metropolitan cities, because owners are not
     certain that even after expiry of lease or licence period,
     the house, flat or the apartment would be vacated or not.
     It takes decades for final determination of the controversy
     and wrongdoers are never adequately punished.
D Pragmatic approach of the courts would partly solve the
     housing problem of this country. The courts have to be
     extremely careful in granting ad-interim ex-parte
     injunction. If injunction has been granted on the basis of
     false pleadings or forged documents, then the concerned
E ,, court must impose costs, grant realistic or actual mesne
     profits and/or order prosecution. This must be done to
     discourage the dishonest and unscrupulous litigants
     from abusing the judicial system. In substance, the
     incentive or profit for the wrongdoer is to be removed.
F While granting ad interim ex-parte injunction or stay order
     the court must record undertaking from the plaintiff or the
     petitioner that he will have to pay mesne profits at the
     market rate and costs in the event of dismissal of interim
     application and the suit. [Paras 39, 40 and 41] [1020-B-E]
G      1.7 In the instant case, the court should have first
  examined the pleadings and then not only granted leave
  to amend but dir~cted amendment of the pleadings so
  that the parties were confined to those pleas which still
  survived the High Court's decision. Secondly, it should
H have directed discovery and production of documents
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &                 997
                  ORS.

and their admission/denial. Thir~ly, if the civil judge on        A
6.10.2004, which was three and a half years after the                 !
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, instead of framing
the issues that he did, had, after recording the statements
of the parties and partially hearing the matter should have
passed the order that the pleadings were not sufficient           B
to raise an issue for adverse possession and that the
pleadings and .contentions before the High Court had the
effect of completely negating any claim to adverse
possession. [Para 42] [1020-F-H; 1021-A-B]
      1.8 Framing of issues is a very important stage in the
                                                                  c
civil litigation and it is the bounden duty of the court that
due care, caution, diligence and attention must be
bestowed by the Presiding Judge while framing of issues.
In the instant case, when the entire question of title had
been determined by the High Court and the Special                 D
Leave Petition against that judgment was dismissed by
this Court, thereafter, the trial court ought not to have
framed such an issue on a point which has been finally
determined upto this Court. In any case, the same was
exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata. That        E
clearly demonstrates total non-application of mind.
[Paras 43 and 44] [1021-C-D]

     1.9 Unless it is ensured that wrong- doers are denied
profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it         F
would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for
litigations. In order to curb un·called for and frivolous
litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no
incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter
of common experience that court's otherwise scarce and            G
valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted
in a large number of uncalled for cases. [Para 45] [1021-
E-F]
    1.10 Usually the court should be cautious and
extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim              H
   998       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 8 S.C.R


A injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a
  short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear
  both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders.
  Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunction orders
  in some cases can create havoc and getting them
B vacated or modified in our exi~ting judicial system is a
  nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant
  interim injunction or stay order only a~r hearing the
  defendants or the respondents and in case the court has
  to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then·
c while granting injunction it must record in the order that
  if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the
  petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic
  costs and mesne profits. If an ex-parte injunction order
  is granted, then in that case an endeavour should be
  made to dispose of the application for injunction as
0
  expeditiously as may be possible, preferably as soon as
  the defendant appears in the court. [Paras 46 and 47]
  [1021-G-H; 1022-A-C]
        1.11 It is also a matter of common experience that
E once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or
   the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that
   injunction continues indefinitely. Th19 other appropriate
   order can be to limit the life of the ex-parte injunction or
   stay order for a week or so because in such cases the
F usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters
   by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex-parte
   injunction orders or stay orders may not find
   encouragement. The common impression is to be
   dispelled that a party by obtaining an injunction based on
G even false averments and forged documents will tire out
  the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to
  give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a
   matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine
   objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents
H are filed indiscriminately in the courts because they have
  RAMESHWARI OEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &                999
                   ORS.

hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury          A
by the courts or even pay heavy costs: [Para 48) [1022-
D-G)

    1.12 With regard to the issue of curbing the prevailing
delay in civil litigation, the existing system can be            8
drastically changed or improved if the following steps are
taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials:

    A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties.
    Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the
    bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to            C
    carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings
    and the documents filed by the parties. This must be
    done immediately after civil suits are filed.
    B. The Court should resort to discovery and 0
    production of documents and· interrogatories at the
    earliest according to the object of the Code. If this
    exercise. is carefully carried out, it would focus the
    controversies involved in the case and help the court
    in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial
                                                             E
    justice.
     C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and
     or ordering prosecution would go a long way in
   . controlling the tendency of introducing false
     pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by            F
     the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also
     control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In
     appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering
     prosecution otherwise it mar not be possible to
     maintain purity and sanctity of: judicial proceedings.      G

    D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic
    approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must
    carefully keep in view the ground realities while
    granting mesne profits.
                                                                 H
     1000    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 8 S.C.R.


A       E. The courts should be extremely careful and
        cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim Injunctions
        or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be
        issued to the defendants or respondents and only
        after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders .
B       should be passed.

        F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim
        injunction on the strength of false pleadings and
        forged documents should be adequately punished.
        No one should be allowed to abuse the process of
c       the court.
        G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a
        pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial
        justice.
D
        H. Every case emanates from a human or a
        commercial problem and the ~ourt must make
        serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the
        framework of law and in accordance with the well
        settled principles of law and justice.
.E
        I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted,
        then the said application for grant of injunction
        should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both
        sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a
F       priority basis and undue adjournments should be
        avoided.
        J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court
        should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for
        all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written
G
        statement till pronouncement of judgment and the
        courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and
        the said time table as far as possible. If any
        interlocutory application is filed then the same be
        disposed of in between the said dates of hearings
H
   RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &             1001
                    ORS.

     fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for   A
     the main suit may not be disturbed.
 The aforementioned steps may help the courts to
 drastically improve the existing system of administration
 of civil litigation in our Courts. No doubt, it would take
 some time for the courts, litigants and the advocates to · B·
 follow the said steps, but once it is observed across the
 country, then prevailing system of adjudication of civil
 courts is bound to improve. [Para 53) [1023-G-H; 1024-A·
 H; 1025-A-H; 1026-A]
       1.13 While imposing costs the pragmatic realities are
                                                                c
  to be taken into consideration and be realistic what the
  defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in
  contesting the litigation before different courts. The
. prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other
  miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred              D
  towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit,
  miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying,
  court fee etc. are to be also broadly taken into
  consideration. It should not be forgotten while imposing
  costs that for how long the defendants or respondents         E
  were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in
  various courts. The appellants in the instant case have
  harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in
  a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various
  courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of      F
  the various courts for the last 40 years. [Paras 54 and 55]
  [1026-B-E]
      1.14 On consideration of totality of the facts and
 circumstances of the instant case, there is no infirmity in G
 the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These
 appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which is
 quantified as Rs.2,00,000!· (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The
 costs are imposed not out of anguish but by following
·the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get
                                                             H
    1002    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A benefit out of frivolous litigation. The appellants are
  directed to pay the costs imposed by this Court along
  with the costs imposed by the High Court to the
  respondents within the stipulated period. The suit
  pending before the trial court is at the final stage of the
B arguments, therefore, the said suit is directed to be
  disposed of as expeditiously as possible. [Paras 56, 57
  and 58] [1026-F-H]
       1.15 It is made abundantly clear that the trial court
  should not be influenced by any observation or finding
C arrived at by this Court in dealing with these appeals as
  the matter has not been decided on merits of the case.
  [Para 59] [1027 -B]
      Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668:
  2000 (3) SCR 572; Mahi/a Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya
0 Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34: 2008 (10) SCR 869 - referred
  to.
                       Case Law Reference:
       2000 (3) SCR 572           Referred to         Para 48
E
       2008 (10) SCR 869          Referred to         Para 51
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4912-4913 of 2011.
       From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2010 of the High
F Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. (Main) No. 1084 of
  2010 and order dated 25.10.2010 in Review Petition No. 429
  of 2010.
       Dr. Arun Mohan, (A.C.), Vikas Mahajan, Vinod Sharma,
G Tulika Prakash, Kuber Giri for the Appellants.
        R.P. Sharma for the Respondents.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1003
        ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

    2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and           A
order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition
(Main) No. 1084 of 2010 and the order dated 25.10.2010
passed in Review Petition No. 429 of 2010 in Civil
Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi.                                         B

    3. The apparent discernible question which requires
adjudication in this case seems to be a trivial, insignificant and
small one regarding imposition of costs, but in fact, these
appeals have raised several important questions of law of
great importance which we propose to deal in this judgment.          C
Looking to the importance of the matter we requested Dr. Arun
Mohan, a distinguished senior advocate to assist this court as
an Amicus Curiae.

     4. This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the       D
picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how
unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity
harass the respondents and their children by abusing the
judicial system.
                                                                     E
    5. The basic facts which are necessary to dispose of these
appeals are recapitulated as under:-

    6. In the year 1952, almost about half a century ago, the
government allotted a residential house bearing nos. 61-62, I-.
Block, Lajpat Nagar-1, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad. F
The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964.

     7. On humane considerations of shelter, Ram Parshad
allowed his three younger brothers - Madan Lal, Krishan Gopal
and Manohar Lal to reside with him in the house. On16.11.1977,       G
these three younger brothers filed a Civil Suit No.993 of 1977
in the High Court of Delhi claiming that this Lajpat Nagar
property belonged to a joint Hindu Family and sought partition
of the property on that basis:

     8. The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated                   H
    1004        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A 18.01.1982 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
  Delhi. The appellants (younger brothers) of Ram Parshad,
  aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a Regular First
  Appeal (Original Side) 4 of 1982 which was admitted to
  hearing on 09.03.1982. During the pendency of the appeal,
B Ram Parshad on 15.01.1992 filed a suit against his three
  younger brothers for mandatory injunction to remove them and
  for recovery of mesne profits. In 1984 Ram Parshad sold
  western half (No.61) to an outsider. That matter is no longer in
  dispute.
c     9. The first appeal filed by the other three younger brothers
  of Ram Parshad against Ram Parshad was dismissed on
  09.11.2000. Against the concurrent findings of both of the
  judgments, the appellants filed a Special Leave Petition
  No.3740 of 2001 in this court which was also dismissed on
D 16.03.2001.

        10. In the suit filed by Ram Pars had (one of the
    respondents) (now deceased) ag~inst the appellants in these
    appeals the following issues were framed:
E
           1.    Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under
                 Section 10 CPC as alleged in para no.1 of
                 Preliminary Objection?

           2.    Whether defendants are licencees in the suit
F                premises and if so whether the plaintiff is entitled
                 to recover possession of the same from them?

           3.    Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred?

           4.    Whether suit has been properly valued for the
G                purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?

           5.    Whether the suit property is joint family property of
                 parties?

           6.    Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits for
H
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &                   1005
        ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

            use and occupation of the suit property by the            A
            defendants and if so at what rate and for which
            period?

      7.    Whether defendants have become the owner of
            three-fourth share of the suit property by adverse        8
            possession?

      8.    Relief.

and fixed the matter for evidence on 22.11.2004.

     11. The defendants in the suit contended that inasmuch as
                                                                      c
Regular First Appeal (Original Side) 4of1982 was still pending,
therefore, Ram Parshad's suit be stayed under section 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Accepting the contention, on
20.07.1992, the 1992 suit was ordered to be stayed.
                                                                      D
     12. The Regular First Appeal was dismissed on 9.11.2000
and the Special leave petition against the said appeal was also
dismissed on 16.3.2001. Consequently, the suit filed by ~am
Parshad for mandatory injunction and for mesne profit stood
revived on 05.12.2001.                                                E

     13. In the first round of litigation from 16.11.1977 to
16.3.2001 it took about twenty four years and thereafter it had
taken 10 years from 16.3.2001. In the 1992 suit, the defendants
(appellants herein) sought amendment of the written statement         F
which was refused on 28.07.2004. Against this order, a Civil
Miscellaneous (Main) 1153 of 2004 was filed in the High Court
which was disposed of on 02.09.2004 with liberty to move an
application before the trial court for framing an additional issue.
The additional issue regarding the claim of adverse possession        G
by the three younger brothers was framed on 6.10.2004. The
issue was whether the defendants have become the owner of
three-fourth share of the suit property by adverse possession
and the case was fixed up for recording of the evidence.
According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the court before
                                                                      H:
framing Issue Number 7 and retaining the other issues, ought
    1006      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 8 S.C.R.


A   to have recorded the statement of defendants under Order 10
    Rule 2 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) and
    then re-cast the issues as would have been appropriate on the
    pleadings of the parties as they would survive after the decision
    in the previous litigation.
B
       14. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the practice
  of mechanically framing the issues needs to be discouraged.
  Framing of issues is an important exercise. Utmost care and
  attention is required to be bestowed by the judicial officers/
C judges at the time of framing of issues. According to Dr. Arun
  Mohan, twenty minutes spent at that time would have saved
  several years in court proceedings.

       15. In the suit, on 6.11.2004 the application seeking transfer
  of the suit from that court was filed which was dismissed by the
D learned District Judge on 22.3.2005. The trial commenced on
  22.11.2004, adjournment was sought and was granted against
  costs. The plaintiffs' evidence was concluded on 10.2.2005.

        16. On 28.5.2005 the defendants failed to produce the
E evidence and their evidence was closed. Against that order,
  Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 1490 of 2005 was filed in the Delhi
  High Court. Staywas granted on 15.7.2005 and the application
  was dismissed on 17.12.2007 with liberty to move an
  application for taking on record further documents.

F      17. On 12.2.2008, an application under Order 18 Rule 17A
  of the CPC was moved. On 'No Objection' from the plaintiff, it
  was allowed on 31.7.2008 and the documents and affidavits
  were taken on record. On 23.10.2009, the matter was fixed for
  evidence. The appellants filed an application under Order 7
G Rule 11 (b) of the CPC for rejection of the 1992 plaint on the
  ground of not paying ad valorem court fees on the market value
  of property and for under-valuation of relief. This application was
  dismissed by the Civil Judge on 09.07.2010 by the following
  order:-
H
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1007
      ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

        "M-61/2006                                                   A
        09.07.2010
        Present : Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
             Ld. Counsel for defendant
       Application under section 151 CPC is filed by
 defendant for treating Issue No.4 as preliminary issue. It          B
 pertains to court fees and jurisdiction. It is pertinent to
 mention that suit is at the stage of final arguments and
 both the parties have led the entire evidence. Ld. Counsel
 for defendant submits that this application has been filed
 by the defendant in view of the liberty granted to the              C
 defendant by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
 26.4.2010 dismissing the Civil Revision Petition
 application no. 76/10 as withdrawn against the order dated
 12.10.2006 passed by this court. It is pointed out to the
 counsel for defendant that case is at the stage of final            D
 arguments and law enjoins upon the court to return finding
 on all the issues. Counsel for the defendant filing this
 application seeks disposal of the same. Perused the
 application and gone through record. Order 20 Rule 5
 clearly states that court has to return finding on each issue.      E
 Even Order 14 Rule 2 CPC states that the court has to
 pronounce the judgment on all issues notwithstanding that
 the case may be disposed off on preliminary issue. Sub
 Rule 2 refers to the discretion given to the court where the
 court may try issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court       F
 or the bar to the suit created by any law for the time being
 in force as preliminary issue. It further relates to disposal
 of the suit treating these points as preliminary issues and
 also relates to deferring the settlement of other issues. But
 there is no such case. Entire evidence ha.s been led, the           G
 matter is at the stage of final arguments and the point
 raised does not relate to the point pertaining to Sub Rule
 2. Neither it relates to bar created by any law nor the
 jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. It is averrnents
 made in the plaint. Contention of the applicant for treating
 the issue as preliminary issue is against the spirit of law         H
    1008      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011) 8 S.C.R.


A       as referred in Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.
        I do not see any merit in this application and the same is
        dismissed with the costs of Rs.2000/-.

               To come up for payment of cost and final arguments.
B              Put up on 09.08.2010
                                                 (Vipin Kumar Rai)
                                                     ACJ/ARC(W)"
         18. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2009, the
c   defendants (appellants herein) preferred a Civil Revision
    Petition No.76 of 2010 in the High Court of Delhi. At the
    preliminary hearing, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn,
    leaving the trial court at liberty to consider the request of the
    appellants to treat Issue Number 4 regarding court fee as a
o   preliminary issue.

       19. On 09.07.2010, the defendants filed an application
  before the Civil Judge for treating Issue Number 4 as a
  preliminary issue. This application was rejected by the Civil
  Court on 9. 7 .201 Owith costs. The matter is at the stage of final
E arguments before the trial court. At this stage, against the order
  of the Civil Judge, on 7.8.2010, the appellants filed a petition
  being Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No.1084 of 2010 under Article
  227 of the Constitution in the High Court which came up for
  preliminary hearing on 26.8.2010. On 1.9.2010, the High Court
F dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No.1084 of 2010 by
  a detailed judgment rendered at the preliminary hearing and
  imposed cost of Rs. 75000/- to be deposited with the Registrar
  General. Review Petition No. 429 of 2010 was filed which was
  dismissed on 25.10.2010.
G
       20. These appeals have been filed against the order
  imposing costs and dismissing the review petition.

       · 21. The learned Single Judge observed that the present
  appellants belong to that category of litigants whose only motive
H is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not to let
    RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1009
          ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

  the trial conclude. Applications after applications are being filed   A
  by the appellants at every stage, even though orders of the trial
  court are based on sound reasoning. Moreover, the appellants
  have tried to mislead the court also by filing wrong synopsis
  and incorrect dates of events.
                                                                        B
        22. The High Court further observed that the purpose of
  filing of brief synopsis with list of dates and events is to give
  brief and correct summary of the case and not to mislead the
  court. Those litigants or their advocates who mislead the courts
  by filing wrong and incorrect particulars (the list of dates. and     C
  events) must be dealt with heavy hands.

       23. In the list of dates and events, it is stated that the
  respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery
- of Rs.36,000/- on 22nd September, 2003. In fact, as per typed
  copy of the plaint placed on record, the suit was filed by the        D
  predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in 1992. Written
  statement was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the
  appellants in 1992. Thus, the appellants tried to mislead the
  court by mentioning wrong date of 22nd September, 2003 as
  the date of filing.                                                   E

       24. The High Court has also dealt with number of
  judgments dealing with the power of the High Court under
  Article 227 of the Constitution. According to the High Court, the
  suit was filed in the trial court in 1992. The written statement
  was filed as far back on 15th April, 1992. On pleadings, Issue        F
  Number 4 was framed with regard to court fee and jurisdiction.
  The appellants never pressed that Issue Number 4 be treated
  as a preliminary issue. Both the parties led their respective
  evidence. When the suit was fixed before the trial court for final
  arguments, application in question was filed. The appellants          G
  argued that Issue Number 4 would also be determined along
  with other issues.

      25. In the impugned judgment, it is also observed that it is
  revealed from the record that the appellants have been moving         H
    1010      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2011) 8 S.C.R.


A one application after the other, though all were dismissed with
  costs.

          26. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellants also
    moved transfer application apprehending adverse order from
    the trial judge, which was also dismissed by the learned District
8
    Judge. This conduct of the appellants demonstrates that they
    are determined not to allow the trial court to proceed with the
    suit. They are creating all kinds of hurdles and obstacles at every
    stage of the proceedings.

C        27. The learned Single Judge observed that even
    according to Order 14 Rule 2 CPC the court has to pronounce
    the judgment on all issues notwithstanding that the case may
    be disposed of on preliminary issue. Order 14..Rule 2 of the
    CPC is reads as under:
D
         "ORDER XIV: SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND
         DETERMINATION OF SUIT OM ISSUES OF LAW OR ON
         ISSUES AGREED UPON.


E
         2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues: (1)
         Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a
         preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions
         of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.
F
                                            "
        28. Sub Rule 2 refers to the discretion given to the court
  where the court may try issue relating to the jurisdiction of the .
G court or the bar to the suit created by any law for the time being ·
  in force as preliminary issue. It further relates to disposal of the
  suit treating these points as preliminary issues and also relates
  to deferring the settlement of other issues, but there is no such
  case. The entire evidence has been led, the matter is at the
H stage of final arguments and the point raised does not relate
                                                                 ~
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &                    1011
        ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

to the point pertaining to Sub Rule 2. Neither it relates to bar A
created by any law nor the jurisdiction of the court to entertain
the suit. It is just an averment made in the plaint. Contention of
the appellants for treating the said issue as preliminary issue
is against the spirit of law as referred in Order 20 Rule 5 and
Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC. These observations of the courts B
below are correct and in pursuance of the provisions of the Act.
The High Court properly analysed the order of the trial court and
observed as under:-           ·

    "Looking from any angle, no illegality or infirmity can be
    found in the impugned order. The only object of petitioners C
    is just to delay the trial, which is pending for the last more
    than 18 years. To a large extent, petitioners have been
    successful in delaying the judicial proceedings by filing
    false, frivolous and bogus applications, one after the other.
                                                                       D
    It is well settled that frivolous litigation clogs the wheels of
    justice making it difficult for courts to provide easy and
    speedy justice to the genuine litigations.

          Dismissed
                                                                       E
          List for compliance oil 7th October, 2010."

     29. We have carefully examined the impugned judgment
of the High Court and also order dated 9. 7.2010 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Delhi.                                            F

     30. It is abundantly clear from the facts and circumstances
of this case that the appellants have seriously created
obstacles at every stage during the course of trial and virtually
prevented the court from proceeding with the suit. This is a
typical example of how an ordinary suit moves in our courts. G
Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants on one ground
or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the
matter.

    31. The learned Amicus Curiae has taken great pains in             H
       1012       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 8 S.C.R.


-_ A   giving details of how the case has proceeded in the trial court
       by reproducing the entire court orders of 1992 suit. In order to
       properly comprehend the functioning of the trial courts, while
       dealing with civil cases, we deem it appropriate to reproduce
       the order sheets of 1992 suit. This is a typical example of how
  B    a usual civil trial proc;.eeds in our courts. The credibility of entire
       judiciary is at stake unless effective remedial steps are taken
       without further loss of time. Though original litigation and the
       appeal which commenced from 1977 but in order to avoid
       expanding the scope of these appeals, we are dealing only with
  c    the second litigation which commenced in 1992. The order
       sheets of the suit of 1992 are reproduced as under:-

                             Proceedings of Suit - 1992

          17 .01.1992      Summons to Defendants on plaintiff and RC
  D
          28.02.1992       Fresh summons to Defendants 1 & 2.
                           Defendant No. 3 refused service. Proceeded
                           ex-pa rte

          30.03.1992       Time sought to file Written Statement for
  E                        all the Defendants. Allowed.

          20.04.1992       Written Statement filed. Fixed on
                           30.04.1992 for replication, admission/denial
                           and framing of issues.
  F
          01.05.1992       Plaintiff sought time to file replication.

          11.05.1992       Replication filed. Adjourned for
                           admission/ denial on joint request.

  G       26.05.1992       No document for admission/denial. Issues
                           framed. Fixed for arguments on 17.07.1992.

          17.07.1992       Arguments heard on preliminary issue.

          20.07.1992       Suit stayed. Plaintiff granted liberty to
  H
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &                 1013
      ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI; J.J

             make application for revival after.disposal of      A

•            RFA (OS) 4/82 .
                                  .
01.06.2001   File sent to District Judge for transferring
             the case to proper court.

             District Judge marked to case to the court          B
04.06.2001
             of Shri Naipal Singh, Additional District
             Judge.

02.07.2001   Presiding Officer is on vacation leave.
             Fixed for 03.07.2001.                               c
03.07.2001   Miscellaneous application notice issued to
             the respondent. Main Suit 47/92 summoned.

23.08.2001   Suit file be summoned. Notice of application
             to Defendant on PF & RC.                            D

16.10.2001   Copy of application given to all the
             Defendants. Adjourned for reply to application
             and further proceedings.

05.12.2001   Suit has to proceed for the decision on
                                                                 E
             merits.

28.02.2002   Application under Order 6 Rule 17 moved
             by Defendant for amendment of Written
             Statement. Adjourned for reply and                  F
             arguments on the application.

16.04.2002   As the value of the suit is below 3 lakhs,
             the suit transferred to the court of Civil Judge.

23.04.2002   Reply to application filed. Summons to              G
             Defendants other than Defendant No. 3.

21.08.2002   Counsel for the parties not present.

28.11.2002   Presiding Officer on leave.
                                                                 H
    1014   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A    07.12.2002   At joint request, adjourned. Last opportunity.

     22.09.2003   None present. Adjourned for arguments
                  on Order 6 Rule 17. File transferred to the
                  court of Shri Prashant Kumar, Civil Judge.
B    12.11.2003   Son of the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff
                  has expired. Adjourned.

     06.12.2003   Presiding Officer not available.

     16.01.2004   Copy of application under Order 22 Rule
c                 3 supplied. As requested, adjourned.

     16.02.2004   Reply not filed. Counsel for the Defendant
                  seeks time to file reply.

D    01.03.2004    Reply filed. Counsel for the Defendant
                  .objected that the addresses of Legal
                   Representatives are not correct.

     24.03.2004   Application Order 22 Rule 3 is allowed.
                  Right to sue survives. Order 6 Rule 17
E                 pending for disposal.

     27.04.2004   Arguments heard.

     22.05.2004   Plaintiff wants to file written submissions
F                 with regard to clarification. Allowed.

     03.07.2004   None for Defendants. Written
                  submissions filed by Plaintiff.

     28.07.2004   Present none. Order 6 Rule 17
G                 dismissed.

     02.09.2004   None for Defendants. Fixed for PE to
                  06.10.2004

     28.09.2004   Defendant moved application Order 14 Rule
H                 5. Notice issued.
                 fl
                  !


RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1015
      ORS.
       .
           [DALVEER
                .
                    BHANDARI,
                    '
                               J.]

06.10.2004     Issues reframed. Defendant sought time to        A
               cross-examine PW.

22.11.2004     PW present. Defendant prayed for
               adjournment. Defendant moved application
               for transfer of the case. Last opportunity for
                                                                B
               cross-examination.

21.12.2004     PW present. Previous cost not pressed for.
               PW sought time for obtaining copies of
               documents.
                                                                c
10.02.2005     PW cross-examined. PE closed.

15.03.2005     No OW present

19.04.2005     Affidavit of OW filed. However DW stated that
               he is not feeling well. Adjourned.               D

28.05.2004     Defendant stated that he does not want to
               lead evidence. DE closed. Fixed for final
               arguments.

15.07.2005     Stay by the High-Court in CM (Main) 1490/        E
               2005.

18.07.2005     Counsel for the Defendant states that the
               High Court has stayed the matter. Directed to
               file the copy of the order.                      F
25.08.2005     No copy of the order is filed.

29.10.2005     Matter under stay by High Court.

30.01.2006     Fresh suit received by transfer. Adjourned for   G
               proper orders.

02.05.2006     Notice to Defendants .

. 31.05.2006   Counsel for the Defendants served but none
               appeared. Adjourned for final arguments.         H
    1016    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A     21.08.2006   File not traceable. Adjourned.

      09.12.2006   Present: Counsel for the plaintiff. Adjourned
                   for final arguments.

      19.02.2007   Counsel for the plaintiff. Proceedings stayed
B                  by the High Court.

      21.08.2007   Counsel for the Plaintiff. Matter under stay by
                   the High Court.

      17.12.2007   CM {Main) 1490/2005 dismissed by the High
c                  Court. Stay vacated.

      10.01.2008   Counsel for the Plaintiff. None for the
                   Defendant. Adjourned.

D     12.02.2008   Defendant filed application 018 R17A. Copy
                   supplied. Adjourned for reply and arguments.

      30.04.2008   Reply filed by the Plaintiff. Application allowed
                   to cost of Rs.7,000/-, out of which Rs.1,000/- .
                   to be deposited in Legal Aid. Adjourned for
E                  DE.

      31.07.2008   Defendant sought adjournment on the ground
                   that witness is not feeling well.

F     29.09.2008   Plaintiff moved application Order 6 Rule 17.
                   Copy supplied.

      23.12.2008   Reply filed. Come up for arguments on the
                   application.

G     21.05.2009   Part arguments heard.

      22.07.2009   Plaintiff does not press for the application.
                   Dismissed. To come up for DE.

      05.10.2009   Defendants witness not present. Application
H                  for exemption allowed. Affidavit already filed.
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1017
        ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

  23.10.2009     Application under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC filed.    A
                 Dismissed. Affidavit of Kishan Gopal
                 tendered as DW1, and he is cross-examined
                 and discharged. No other witness. DE closed.

   11.01.2010    Presiding Officer on leave.                    B
  23.03.2010     Defendant seeks adjournment on the ground
                 that main counsel not available.

  03.05.2010     Adjournment sought on behalf of the parties.
                                                                c
  26.05.2010     File not traceable.

  09.07.2010     Application under Section 151 CPC for
                 treating No. 4 as preliminary issue.
                 Dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-
                                                                D
  09.08.2010     Application for adjournment filed.
  R09.2010       Presiding Officer on leave.
  23.10.2010     For final arguments.
                                                                E
   18.12.2010    For final arguments.
   22.01.2011    For final arguments:

   05.02.2011    For final arguments.
                                                                F
   26.02.2011    Sought adjournment on the ground that
                 the matter regarding cost is pending in
                 Hon'ble Supreme Court.
     32. Dr. Arun Mohan, learned amicus curiae, has written an
                                                                 G
extremely useful, informative and unusual book "Justice, Courts
and Delays". This book also deals with the main causes of
delay in the administration of justice. He has also suggested
some effective remedial measures. We would briefly deal with
the aspect of delay in disposal of civil cases and some remedial
                                                                 H
    1018      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A   measures and suggestions to improve the situation. According
    to our considered view, if these suggestions are implemented
    in proper perspective, then the present justice delivery system
    of civil litigation would certainly improve to a great extent.

        33. According to the learned author, 90% of our court time
8
  and resources are consumed in attending to uncalled for
  litigation, which is created only because our current procedures
  and practices hold out an incentive for the wrong- doer. Those
  involved receive less than full justice· and there are many more
  in the country, in fact, a greater number than those involved who
C suffer injustice because they have little access to justice, in fact,
  lack of awareness and confidence in the justice system.

        34. According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled
  for litigation gets encouragement because our courts do not
D impose realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims
  and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying
  tactics because the courts do not impose actual or realistic
  costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains
  uncompensated in our courts and that operates as the main
E motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants. Unless the courts,
  by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for
  motivation or the incentives, uncalled for litigation will continue
  to accrue, and there will be expansion and obstruction of the
  litigation. Court time and resources will be consumed and
F justice will be both delayed and denied.

       35. According to the learned author lesser the court's
  attention towards full restitution and realistic costs, which
  translates as profit for the wrongdoer, the greater would be the
  generation of uncalled for litigation and exercise of skills for
G achieving delays by impurity in presentation and deployment
  of obstructive tactics.

       36. According to him the cost (risk) - benefit ratio is directly
  dependent on what costs and penalties will the court impose
H on him; and the benefit will come in as: the other 'succumbing'
     RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1019
           ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

  en route and or leaving a profit for him, or even if it is a fight to   A
  the end, the court still leaving a profit with him as unrestituted
  gains or unassessed short levied costs. Litigation perception
  of the probability of the other party getting tired and succumbing
  to the delays and settling with him and the court ultimately
  awarding what kind of restitution, costs and fines .against him         B
  - paltry or realistic. This perception ought to be the real risk
  evaluation.

        37. According to the learned Amicus Curiae if the
  appellants had the apprehension of imposition of realistic costs
  or restitution, then this litigation perhaps would not have been        C
  filed. According to him, ideally, having lost up to the highest court
  (16.03.2001), the appellants (defendants in the suit) ought to
  have vacated the premises and. moved out on their own, but
  the appellants seem to have acted as most parties do-calculate
  the cost (risk)-benefit ratio between surrendering on their own         D
  and continuing to contest before the court. Procrastinating
  litigation is common place because, in practice, the courts are
~ reluctant to order restitution and actual cost incurred by the other
  side.
                                                                          E
_ Profits for the wrongdoer

         38. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, every lease
   on its expiry, or a license on its revocation cannot be converted
   itself into litigation. Unfortunately, our courts are flooded with
   these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrong-         F
   doers in our system. It is a matter of common knowledge that
   domestic servants, gardeners, watchmen, caretakers or security
   men employed in a premises, whose status is that of a licensee
   indiscriminately file suits for injunction not to be dispossessed
   by making all kinds of averments and may be even filing a              G
   forged document, and then demands a chunk of money for
   withdrawing the suit. It is happening because it is the general
   impression that even if ultimately unauthorized person is thrown
   out of the premises the court would not ordinarily punish the
   unauthorized person by awarding realistic and actual mesne             H
    1020      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 8 S.C.R.


A profits, imposing costs or ordering prosecution.

          39. It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of flats
    and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities
    and metropolitan cities, because owners are not certain that
    even after expiry of lease or licence period, the house, flat or
8   the apartment would be vacated or11ot. It takes decades for
    final determination of the controversy and wrongdoers are never
    adequately punished. Pragmatic approach of the courts would
    partly solve the housing problem of this country.

C       40. The courts have to be extremely careful in granting ad-
  interim ex-parte injunction. If injunction has been granted on the
  basis of false pleadings or forged documents, then the
  concerned court must impose costs, grant realistic or actual
  mesne profits and/or order prosecution. This must be done to
D discourage the dishonest and unscrupulous litigants from
  abusing the judicial system. In substance, we have to remove
  the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer.

        41. While granting ad interim ex-parte injunction or stay
  order the court must record undertaking from the plaintiff or the
E petitioner that he will have to pay mesne profits at the market
  rate and costs in the event of dismissal of interim application
  and the suit.

       42. According to the learned Amicus Curiae the court
F should have first examined the pleadings and then not only
  granted leave to amend but directed amendment of the
  pleadings so that the parties were confined to those pleas
  which still survived the High Court's decision. Secondly, it
  should have directed discovery and production of documents
G and their admission/denial. Thirdly, if the civil judge on
  6.10.2004, which was three and a half years after the dismissal
  of the Special Leave Petition on 16.3.2001, instead of framing
  the issues that he did, had, after recording the statements of
  the parties and partially hearing the matter should have passed
H the following order:
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1021
        ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

     "In my prima facie view, your pleadings are not sufficient          A
     to raise an issue for adverse possession, secondly how
     can you contend adverse possession of three-fourth
     share? And thirdly, your pleadings and contentions before
     the High Court had the effect of completely negating any
     claim to adverse possession ... ."                                  B

      43. Framing of issues is a very important stage in the civil
litigation and it is the bounden duty of the court that due care,
caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the
learned Presiding Judge while framing of issues.
                                                                         c
      44. In the instant case when the entire question of title has
been determined by the High Court and the Special Leave
Petition against that judgment has been dismissed by this court,
thereafter the trial court ought not to have framed such an issue
on a point which has been finally determined upto this Court. D
In any case, the same was exclusively barred by the principles
of res judicata. That clearly demonstrates total non-application .
of mind.

       45. We have carefully examined the written submissions            E
 of the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the
 parties. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that
·wrong- doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the
 frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and
 uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous
 litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or
                                                                         F
 motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common
 experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is
 consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of
 uncalled for cases.
                                                                         G
     46. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely
careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better
course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases
even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable
biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte interim                 H
     1022       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2011) 8 S.C.R.


 A injunction ·orders in some cases can create havoc and getting
   them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a
   nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim
   injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the ·
   respondents and in case the court has to grant ex-parte
 B injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it
   must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed,
   the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual
   or realistic costs and mesne profits.

 C        47. If an exparte injunction order is granted, then in that
                                                                      1
     case an endeavour should be made to dispose -of the
     application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible,
     preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court.

         48. It is also a matter of common experience that once an
 D ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner
   would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues
   indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life
   of the ex-parte injunction or stay order for a week or so
   because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily I
 E prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after ·
   obtaining ex-parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find
   encouragement. We have to dispel the common impression
   that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false
   averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and
 F ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrongdoer
   his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience
   that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken
   and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts
   because they have hardly any apprehension of being
 G prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs.
   In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 this
   court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a
   way of life in our courts.

         49. It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and
· H continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer.
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1023
        ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

    50. Learned amicus articulated common man's general                 A
impression about litigation in following words:

    "Make any false ,averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea,
    produce any false document, deny any genuine document,
    it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay
                                                                        8
    the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into
    a settlement which will be profitable for me and the
    probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is
    less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing
    the road."
                                                                        c
    This court in Swaran Singh (Supra) observed as under:

           "......... Perjury has also become a way of life in the
    law courts. A trial Judge knows that the witness is telling
    a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he           D
    does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint
    against him. He-is required to. sign the complaint himself
    which. deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law
    needs amendment to clause (b) of Section 340 (3) of the
    Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High
    Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid        E
    of the evil of perjury, the court should resort to the use of
    the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the
    Code of Criminal Procedure."

      51. In a recent judgment in the case of Mahi/a Vinod              F
 Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34 this
·court has shown great concern about alarming proportion of
 perjury cases in our country.

     52. The main question which arises for our consideration           G
is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed?
In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically
changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial
courts while dealing with the civil trials.

      A     Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties.          H
    1024        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A                Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is
                 the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge
                 to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the
                 pleadings and the documents filed by the parties.
                 This must be done immediately after civil suits are
B                filed.

           B.    The Court should resort to discovery and production
                 of documents and interrogatories at the earliest
                 according to the object of the Code. If this exercise
                 is carefully carried out, it would focus the
c                controversies involved in the case and help the court
                 in arriving at truth of the matter and doing
                 substantial justice.

           C.    Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and
D                or ordering prosecution would go a long way in
                 controlling the tendency of introducing false
                 pleadings and forged and rabricated documents by
                 the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also
                 control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In
                 appropriate cases the courts may consider
E
                 ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be
                 possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial
                 proceedings.

           D.   The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic
F               approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must
                carefully keep in view the ground realities while
                granting mesne profits.

           E.    The courts should be extremely careful and cautious
G                in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay
                 orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to
                 the defendants or respondents and only after
                 hearing concerned parties appropriate orders
                 should be passed.
H
  RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI & 1025
        ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
      F.     Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim                    A
             injunction on the strength of false pleadings and
             forged documents should be adequately punished.
             No one should be allowed to abuse the process of
             the court.
                                                                           B
      G.     The principle of restitution be fully applied in a
             pragmatic manner in order to do real and
             substantial justice.

      H.     Every case emanates from a human or a
             commercial problem and the Court must make                    C
             serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the
             framework of law and in accordance with the well
             settled principles of law and justice.

       I.    If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted,           o
             then the said application for grant of injunction
             should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both
             sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a
             priority basis and undue adjournments should be
             avoided.                                                      E
      J.     At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should
             prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the
             stages of the suit, right from filing of the written
             statement till pronouncement of judgment and the
             courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and           F
             the said time table as far as possible. If any
             interlocutory application is filed then the same be
             disposed of in between the said dates of hearings
             fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for
             the main suit may not be disturbed.                           G

      53. According to us, these aforementioned steps may help
,the courts to drastically improve the existing system of
 administration of civil litigation in our Courts. No doubt, it would
 take some time for the courts, litigants and the advocates to             H
     1026      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A    follow the aforesaid steps, but once it is observed across the
     country, then prevailing system of adjudication of civil courts is
     bound to improve.

       54. While imposing costs we have to take into
  consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the
8
  defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting
  the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly
  take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers
  and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred
  towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit,
C miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee
  etc.

       55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while
  imposing costs is for how long the defen<;lants or respondents
D were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various · ·
  courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the
  respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and
  dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also
  wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.
E
          '56. On consideration of totality of the facts and
  . circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the
    well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are
    consequently dismissed with costs. which we quantify as
F Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). We are imposing the
    costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental
    principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous
    litigation.

       57. The appellants are directed to pay the costs imposed
G by this court along with the costs imposed by the High Court to
  the respondents within six weeks from today.

         58. The suit pending before the trial court is at the final
     stage of the arguments, therefore, the said suit is directed to
iH   be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event
     RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA DEVI &                 1027
           ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

>A within three months from the date of the communication of the       A
   order as we have not decided the matter on merits of the case.

         59. We make it abundantly clear that the trial court should
    not be influenced by any observation or finding arrived at by
"'3 us in dealing with these appeals as we have not decided the        8
    matter on merits of the case.

        60. Before parting with this case we would like to record
   our deep appreciation for extremely valuable assistance
   provided by the learned amicus curiae. Dr. Arun Mohan did not
; only provide valuable assistance on the questions of law but         C
   inspected the entire record of the trial court and for the
   convenience of the court filed the entire court proceedings,
   other relevant documents, such as the plaint, written statement
   and relevant judgments. It is extremely rare that such good
 · assistance is provided by the amicus curiae. In our considered      D
   view, learned amicus curiae has discharged his obligation
   towards the profession in an exemplary manner.

        61. These appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms
   of the aforementioned directions.
                                                                       E
   N.J.                                     Appeals disposed of.