Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

“Deliberate Attempt to Mislead Court”: Kerala High Court Slams Petitioner, Imposes Exemplary Costs in 34-Year-Old Property Dispute

28 August 2024 1:44 PM

By: sayum


The Kerala High Court has dismissed an original petition in a property dispute case that has been pending for over three decades. The judgment, delivered by Justice Easwaran S., highlighted the petitioner’s repeated attempts to delay the proceedings through frivolous applications, misrepresentation, and suppression of facts. The Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner, to be paid to the Legal Services Authority, emphasizing the need for stringent action against such tactics that obstruct the course of justice.

The original suit was filed in 1990 by the predecessor of the present plaintiffs seeking eviction and recovery of possession of a property, described as “B Schedule property,” based on title. Despite the initial decree in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant’s appeals and subsequent legal maneuvers led to prolonged litigation. The case was remanded by the High Court in 2020 for fresh consideration on the identification of the disputed property based on an old survey number. The trial court’s efforts to move forward were continually obstructed by the petitioner through various interim applications, culminating in the current petition.

Justice Easwaran S. observed that the petitioner, who is the defendant in the original suit, had employed multiple tactics to delay the case, including filing a series of frivolous applications. The Court noted that these applications were designed not to resolve the actual dispute but to prolong the litigation unnecessarily. The petitioner’s behavior was described as “untenable and fallacious,” highlighting the lack of merit in the arguments presented.

The judgment was particularly critical of the petitioner for suppressing material facts from the Court, including the filing of an important interlocutory application (IA No. 7 of 2022) that sought to delay the property inspection by an Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner failed to disclose this application and the subsequent dismissal order in the present petition, leading the Court to conclude that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

In addressing the key issues raised by the petitioner, the Court meticulously examined the proceedings and records from the trial court. It was determined that the petitioner’s challenges to the authenticity of certain documents and the identification of the property were baseless. The Court emphasized that these issues were already addressed by the trial court, and the petitioner’s arguments were merely an extension of their delay tactics.

The Court also underscored the impropriety of challenging orders that had already attained finality, as the petition did not include all relevant parties, and the matters being contested were not even part of the original suit’s subject matter.

Justice Easwaran S. remarked, “There is a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead this Court. The absence of any challenge to the order dated 24-6-2022 in IA No. 7 of 2022 is certainly a point which should deter this Court from proceeding further in this Original Petition.”

The Kerala High Court’s dismissal of the petition sends a clear message about the judiciary’s intolerance for tactics that aim to subvert the legal process. By imposing costs on the petitioner and highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural integrity, the judgment reinforces the commitment to delivering timely and fair justice. The outcome of this case is expected to discourage similar frivolous litigation and contribute to the efficient resolution of long-pending cases.

SAJITHA ISMAIL VS T.S. SANTHAKUMARI & Ors

Date of Decision: August 23, 2024.

Latest Legal News