Advertisement

Indore

Updated on: Saturday, July 31, 2021, 01:44 AM IST

​​ ​Indore: HC dismisses petition, imposes Rs 2L cost on petitioner​

Justice Subodh Abhyankar imposed the cost on the petitioner stating that he had blatantly misused the process of the court.
Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court building |

Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court building |

Advertisement

Indore

Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition and imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on a person for petitioning for the purpose of delaying a legal case related to eviction from property.

Justice Subodh Abhyankar imposed the cost on the petitioner stating that he had blatantly misused the process of the court.

Advocate Prateek Maheshwari, counsel of respondent Jaipaldas Punjabi, said that his client had given a shop owned by him in Dawa Bazaar on rent to Mahesh Kumar Punjabi, the respondent’s brother.

However, Mahesh Kumar instead of giving rent to his brother started saying that the shop is owned by their family. To this, Jaipaldas moved​ the ​lower court for eviction of shop and rent recovery.​ ​

After hearing was over in the evection case and the lower court was set to pronounce the verdict, Mahesh Kumar moved a fresh petition in ​a ​trial court for a declaration of ownership of property with a request that both the cases should be merged.

The trial court rejected his petition to which he moved High Court.

“By no stretch of imagination can it be said that if the two suits are consolidated, it would save valuable time and energy of the court and the parties because in the suit for eviction, only judgement is to be declared whereas in the suit of declaration the entire evidence is still to be led by the parties which is likely to take a sufficiently long time in the present scenario of Covid-19. In the considered opinion of this court, the only purpose that can be served by consolidating the suit of eviction with the declaration suit is that it would further delay the final disposal of eviction suit in which only the judgement is to be delivered,” the judge observed.

The court noted, “the narration of facts clearly reveals the tendency of the petitioner to misuse the process of the court at its pleasure by filing frivolous petitions one after the another so that to browbeat the trial court on the ground that the petition is pending before this court.”

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

Published on: Saturday, July 31, 2021, 01:44 AM IST
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement