Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: 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