Rs.No.1970 of 2012(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.1970 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision: 04.08.2014 Bhinder Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Jagpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.
2.
To be referred to reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
* * * Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant(s).Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
(Oral) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession, of his half share in the suit land, by way of partition as described in the plaint, with a further prayer for restraining the defendant-appellant from alienating the suit land more than his share and by way of specific khaSr.numbeRs.The suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2010 in the following manner: “This suit is coming in this day for final disposal before me (S.Ajaib Singh, PCS) Add.
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mansa in the presence of Sh.Ashok Kumar Singla, Adv.counsel PUSHPINDER SAINI201408.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Rs.No.1970 of 2012(O&M) 2 for the plaintiff and Sh.
Sarabjeet Singh Grewal, Adv.counsel for the defendant and it is hereby ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed preliminary but without costs for possession of ½ share of the land bearing khaSr.numbers 358//1/1(1-13) situated in the area of village Hamirgarh alias Dhapei, Tehsil & District Mansa by way of partition as well as also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of any specific part of the said property by way of mortgage, sale, gift or in any other form and from raising any type of construction over the same thereof illegally and forcibly except in due couRs.of law.”
.
Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed vide judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 17.10.2011.
Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
On 21.1.2013, counsel for the appellant stated before this Court that parties are brothers and in case notice of motion is issued, there are chances of an amicable settlement and on the basis of the aforesaid submission made notice of motion was issued for 8.7.2013.
On completion of service, the case was adjourned vide order dated 8.7.2013 to enable learned counsel for the parties to get instructions with regard to amicable settlement.
On 10.3.2014, this Court after noticing the submissions made PUSHPINDER SAINI201408.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Rs.No.1970 of 2012(O&M) 3 passed the following order: “It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel for the appellant that a criminal case has already been settled between the parties and the appellant is also ready to settle the instant dispute.
However, counsel for the respondent has not received any instructions in this regard.
List on 02.05.2014.
To be shown in the urgent list.
Let the parties be present in the Court on the date fixed.
In the meantime, appellant may place on record a copy of the judgment passed in the criminal case.”
.
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, plaintiff-respondent Jagpal Singh is present in Court.
However,appellant-Bhinder Singh is not present.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that he had communicated the aforesaid to the appellant but he does not know why the appellant is not present.
At this stage, Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate, on instructions from Jagpal Singh-respondent, who is present in Court, has brought to the notice of this Court that there is no settlement between the parties in the criminal case as submitted before this Court on 10.3.2014 on behalf of the appellant.
He has further informed this Court that in fact vide judgment dated 24.7.2013 both the parties were convicted in the cross cases arising out of FIR No.52 of 23.5.2009 registered under Sections 324, 324 read with PUSHPINDER SAINI201408.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Rs.No.1970 of 2012(O&M) 4 Section 34 IPC at Police Station Bhikhi.
A photocopy of the judgment dated 24.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa was also produced before this Court.
Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that he had made the submission on the basis of information supplied by his client, however, he could not dispute the submissions made on behalf of the respondent.
From the aforesaid facts, as narrated above, it seems that from the very beginning the appellant has tried to mislead this Court by making a submission to the effect that there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties and thereafter with regard to the decision of criminal case.
Such a litigant is liable to be thrown out of the Court at the very threshold and is not entitled to hearing.
It is well settled that any appeal wherein a false plea has been put up has to be dismissed at its threshold.
Reliance can be made in this regard on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh & ORS.(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114.
In Prestige Lights LTD.versus SBI (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 449, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a litigant is guilty of suppressing the facts or not disclosing the facts, then such a petition should be dismissed without adjudicating on merits.
There is a catena of judgments wherein it has been held that the Court should ensure that a frivolous petition must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb such petitions.
In this regard, reliance can be placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and otheRs.2010(1) RCR (Civil) 842.
In Salem Advocate Bar Association versus PUSHPINDER SAINI201408.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Rs.No.1970 of 2012(O&M) 5 Union of India 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party and thus, the costs imposed should be actual reasonable costs.
Thus, this appeal is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.20,000/-.
Let the costs be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, within one month from today.
August 04, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE PUSHPINDER SAINI201408.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh