Habit of Filing Unnecessary Suits Needs to be Discouraged: P&H High Court Dismisses Frivolous Litigation on Land Ownership
In a decisive judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a regular second appeal involving claims of land ownership, which had been repeatedly adjudicated in prior suits. The bench led by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin emphasized the detrimental impact of habitual litigation on the judicial system.
Legal Point of Judgment: The court addressed issues surrounding res judicata, adverse possession, and the appropriate conduct in litigation. The appeal challenged the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed the plaintiff’s claims regarding the ownership and possession of land.
Facts and Issues of the Case: The plaintiff, Banwari Lal, represented by Advocate Mr. Abhinav Sood, contested the ownership and possession of land totaling 117 kanals 14 marlas. The suit was originally filed against mutations performed in 1956 and 1979, which the plaintiff claimed were illegal. The defendant-respondents argued that the plaintiff had previously filed multiple suits on similar grounds, all of which had been dismissed, thereby establishing a pattern of frivolous litigation.
Court’s Assessment:
Res Judicata and Habitual Litigation: Justice Sarin noted the plaintiff’s history of initiating similar lawsuits, which were consistently dismissed. The court held that such repetitive filing constituted an abuse of the judicial process and was barred by the principles of res judicata.
Condonation of Delay: The court refused to condone a 409-day delay in filing the present appeal, citing insufficient details and lack of a convincing explanation for the delay as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Ownership and Possession: The judgment highlighted the contradictory positions taken by the plaintiff over the years, including a previous suit filed for adverse possession, which indirectly acknowledged the respondents’ ownership. This inconsistent stance weakened the plaintiff’s current claim to ownership.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed as meritless, with the court citing no substantial questions of law warranting reconsideration. The application for condonation of delay was also dismissed due to the unexplained and excessive delay.
Date of Decision: April 29, 2024.
Banwari Lal vs. Dulla & Ors.
