Delhi Jal Board v. Devender Singh

order.

¶19Present petition which is most bogus, false and frivolous one is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs, since petitioner has made absolutely false and baseless allegations against the trial Judge, in order to cover up its own fault.

¶20It is well settled that frivolous and bogus petitions levelling false allegations against trial court Judges should be dealt with heavy hands. No leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, try to level false allegations against the courts.

¶21It is a well known fact that the courts across the country are saddled with large number of cases and Government Undertakings indulgences further burden them. The courts have been expressing their displeasure at the Government compulsive litigation habit. Rise in litigation is also due to the fact that Government Undertakings such as the petitioner, having large

number of legal personnel under their employment do not examine the cases properly and approaches the Courts by filing mindless and frivolous litigation.

¶22Since petitioner, which is Government Undertaking had already filed review petition before the trial court and which was rightly dismissed, has chosen to come to this Court without any legal basis and has just made baseless allegations against the trial court Judge.

¶23Under these circumstances, present petition which is meritless, bogus, most frivolous one is not maintainable under Article 227 of Constitution of India and same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only).

¶24Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs with Registrar General of this court by way of cross cheque, within four weeks from today.

¶25Meanwhile, petitioner shall recover the cost amount from the salaries of delinquent officials who has been pursuing this meritless and frivolous litigation with the sole aim of wasting the public exchequer. Affidavit giving details of the officials from whose salary the costs have been recovered, be also filed within four weeks. + CM No. 14779/2010 (stay)

¶26Dismissed.

¶27List for compliance on 28th September, 2010.

25th August, 2010

V.B.GUPTA, J. mw

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M) No. 1055/2010 & CM No. 14779/2010 (stay) % Judgment reserved on: 18th August, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 25th August, 2010 Delhi Jal Board (Through its Chief Engineer Sh.V.S.Thind) Varunalaya, Jhandewalan, Karol Bagh, Delhi. ….Petitioner. Through: Mr.D.P.Kaushik, Advocate Versus Sh.Devender Singh Sole Proprietor M/s Jagat Singh Contractor Having its office at 1/C/95, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-35. ….Respondent Through: None Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner for setting aside order dated 30th January, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. 2. Vide impugned order, learned trial court dismissed the application of petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as "Code"), for review of order dated 19.9.2009. 3. Respondent herein, had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,81,655/- against petitioner in year 2008, which is pending in the trial court. 4. On 19.9.2009 the matter was listed before the trial court for filing of replication, admission/denial of documents and for settlement of issues. No authorized representative of the petitioner was present in the Court on that day for admission/denial of the documents filed by the respondent along with the plaint and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2009 for admission/denial of documents and framing of issues. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that on 19.9.2009, two officers of the petitioner appeared in the Court despite the fact that their presence was not needed as the petitioner was to press for rejection of the plaint. 6. It is further contended that on the first call, counsel for petitioner was in the High Court and in his absence, officers of the petitioner sought a pass over. Respondent made up the deficiency in furnishing of a duplicate copy of the plaint and deficient papers. 7. On the next call, petitioner"s counsel accompanied by the aforesaid two officers appeared before the Court. The trial court asked petitioner"s counsel to carry out admission/denial of the documents. Petitioner"s counsel submitted that there could be no admission/denial of the documents as in the written statement petitioner, has set up a case for rejection/dismissal of the plaint and prayed for rejection/dismissal of the plaint. Respondent counsel did not offer even slightest opposition to petitioner"s case for rejection of the plaint. 8. After hearing, learned trial court passed order dated 19.9.2009 in breach/disregard of fundamental canons of adjudication and thereby grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for review, which was wrongly dismissed by the trial court. Hence this petition. 9. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited. 10. In Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954, SC 215, the court observed; "This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in – "Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee", AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors." 11. In light of principles laid down in the above decision, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned order is maintainable or not. 12. At the outset, it may be pointed out that facts mentioned in the present petition are against the record. In order dated 19.9.2009, it is nowhere stated