News Updates

It Is High Time That Dishonest Litigation In The Country Is Discouraged: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Apoorva Mandhani
31 July 2017 8:17 AM GMT
It Is High Time That Dishonest Litigation In The Country Is Discouraged: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Delhi High Court on Friday lamented the increasing instances of dishonest litigation in the country, and dismissed an appeal with costs of Rs. 2 lakhs for “abuse of process of law”.

“It is high time that dishonest litigation in this country must be discouraged,” Valmiki J. Mehta observed.

The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by one Mr. Kuldeep Aggarwal, challenging an order passed last month, wherein the Trial Court had ruled against Mr. Aggarwal in a suit challenging termination of his tenancy.

Mr. Aggarwal had now approached the High Court, contending that he was, in fact, not a tenant, and that the suit property had been purchased by him.

Justice Mehta, however, noted that no registered documents were produced to support such contention, and observed, “Clearly therefore the defence of the appellant/defendant/tenant of his having purchased the property had no legs to stand upon because transfer of title in the property is by means of registered document and which admittedly did not exist and therefore by admitted fact no defence was made out before the trial court for not decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The Court, thereafter, dismissed the Petition, observing, “The present appeal and defence of the appellant/defendant/tenant before the trial court is completely dishonest and malicious to somehow or the other enable the appellant/defendant/tenant to illegally continue in possession of the suit premises.”

It then ordered costs to be deposited with the website within a period of three weeks.

Read the Judgment Here

Next Story