Judgment:
$~33 & 34 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO3581997 BACHAN SINGH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P.K.Mishra, Adv. versus Through: Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Adv. for R-1. ........ RESPONDENTS
STATE & ORS + FAO3641997 BACHAN SINGH KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P.K.Mishra, Adv. versus STATE & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.
MEHTA Through: Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Adv. for R-1. ........ RESPONDENTS
% ORDER
0505.2017 CM No.17293/2017 (Exemption) in FAO No.358/1997 CM No.17299/2017 (Exemption) in FAO No.364/1997 Exemptions allowed subject to just exceptions. CMs stand disposed of. CM No.17292/2017 (for recall of the order dated 25.2.2014) in FAO No.358/1997 & CM No.17298/2017 (for recall of the order dated 25.2.2014) in FAO No.364/1997 FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 1 of 7 1. These applications are filed by the appellant to recall the order dated 25.2.2014, by which the appeals were disposed of as not pressed and time of around 3 years was granted to the applicant/appellant to vacate the ground floor and first floor of the property bearing No.E-108, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The order dated 25.2.2014 of which recall is sought reads as under:-
"“1. Both these appeals are dismissed as not pressed as the counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant states that the appellant be only granted time to vacate the ground and first floor portion of the property bearing No.E-108, East of Kailash, New Delhi. This prayer is made because the appellant does not have any other residential premises and nor do any of his family members. Also, the other two sons who are the beneficiaries are living in Germany and Australia and therefore do not have need of residence of the suit property. Also, the third beneficiary being the daughter is residing out of Delhi and is staying in her own home at Jalandhar. In view of the above, appeals are dismissed as not pressed 2. and the appellant is given time to vacate the ground and first floor of E- 108, East of Kailash, New Delhi on or before 31.12.2016 as the appellant is more than 80 years of age and therefore requires sufficient amount of time at this age to arrange for an alternative premises. Appellant will be liable to pay electricity and water charges with respect to aforesaid premises till the same are occupied by him.
3. Let the appellant file an undertaking in terms of today’s order within two weeks and on the appellant filing and complying with the terms of the aforesaid undertaking, the appellant will be entitled to continue to live in the aforesaid premises till 31.12.2016. As per the statement made in the present applications the 2. FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 2 of 7 applicant/appellant states that his earlier counsel cheated and defrauded him by taking signatures on the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 to vacate the suit premises by 31.12.2016, and which was filed in this Court pursuant to the order dated 25.2.2014. The applicant/appellant states that he did not know what he was got made to sign by the earlier counsel Mr. N. Prabhakar,Advocate. It is stated that the earlier counsel when called upon only said that the appeal is pending and he did not inform the appellant/applicant that the appeal stood disposed of by granting time on 25.2.2014. Applicant/appellant also pleads that he has filed a complaint with the Bar Council against Mr. N. Prabhakar, Advocate, and copy of which is attached with the present applications.
3. This Court knows that it is Kalyug. Not only it is Kalyug we are at a deep end in Kalyug. In such age and time surely it is not inconvenient and unknown for litigants to make totally false allegations against an earlier counsel that the applicant/appellant was not properly informed, and which is done for the sake of convenience for seeking the recall of the order dated 25.2.2014 with the same malafide object the complaint against the earlier counsel is filed in the Bar Council. This Court does not accept anything else FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 3 of 7 from dishonest litigants and who would go to any lengths to take favourable orders from the courts.
4. I completely disbelieve and reject the dishonest averments of the applicant/appellant that he did not know the contents of the order dated 25.2.2014 disposing of the appeals as not pressed and however granting time to vacate the suit premises of around three years i.e. up to 31.12.2016. The period from 25.2.2014 till 31.12.2016 is a long period of two years and 10 months. I refuse to believe that a litigant who has contested the case before the court below as also this Court, and who is admittedly not illiterate in any sense of the term, and that too being around 80 years of age when the order dated 25.2.2014 was passed, did not know the contents of the order dated 25.2.2014 till around January 2017. Obviously, the month of January 2017 is a convenient statement because time to vacate the suit premises expired on 31.12.2016 and which was granted by the order dated 25.2.2014. I may also note that status of every case of this Court is not only available to be known by inspection of a court file directly by the litigant, but also the status of a case is available 24x7 and 365 days of the year on the website of this Court. Therefore, this Court cannot believe and summarily rejects the completely FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 4 of 7 false pleading of the applicant/appellant that he did not know the contents of the order dated 25.2.2014.
5. The present case showing dishonesty of the applicant/appellant is all the more worse with respect to alleged lack of knowledge of the appellant/applicant of the contents of the order dated 25.2.2014 inasmuch as the applicant/appellant has filed pursuant to the order dated 25.2.2014 an affidavit of undertaking in this Court dated 18.3.2014, and which admittedly bears the signatures of the applicant/appellant and also duly refers to the order dated 25.2.2014 thereby undertaking to vacate the suit premises by 31.12.2016. This Court rejects completely the case that the applicant/appellant did not know the contents of the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 when the appellant/applicant signed the same, and which stand as stated above is only conveniently stated now in 2017 for filing of the present applications, and when time to vacate the suit premises has expired on 31.12.2016.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present applications being an abuse of the process of law, and which also unfairly and most maliciously target the earlier Advocate who had appeared for the FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 5 of 7 applicant/appellant for almost 6 years before the impugned order was passed on 25.2.2014, and only essentially because the appellant/applicant wants to dishonestly and malafidely withdraw from the order dated 25.2.2014 and the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 duly signed by the appellant/applicant, hence these applications are dismissed with costs of Rs.2 lacs and which costs shall be deposited by the applicant/appellant with Help Age India, C-14 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016. If the applicant/appellant has money to engage a new advocate that also a Senior advocate to argue the present dishonest applications seeking recall of the order dated 25.2.2014, then it is high time that courts should send out a very strong message to dishonest litigants by imposing heaviest of costs.
7. In addition to imposing of costs, I issue notice to the applicant/appellant under Section 340 Cr. P.C for falsely denying on oath the contents of the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 by filing the present application for recall. The facts of the present case also persuade me to issue a notice of contempt against the applicant/appellant in spite of the fact that today the applicant/appellant is 84 years of age because it is high FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 6 of 7 time that irrespective of age gross dishonesty is taken note of and acted upon strongly by this Court.
8. Let notice of contempt be issued to the appellant/applicant, without process fee, through the High Court Process Serving Agency, returnable on 22nd May, 2017. The process server of High Court Process Serving Agency will ensure that no efforts are spared to ensure that appellant/applicant is served of the suo moto contempt notice which is issued by this Court as also the notice as per this order under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
9. List on 22nd May, 2017. VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J MAY05 2017/ib FAOs 358/1997 & 364/1997 page 7 of 7