RAMRAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS.

V.
NIRMALA DEVI & ORS.
- Ahaan Bhatnagar, Rishabh Adlakha,
Aryan Rajveer & Vansh Dua
RAMRAMESHWARI & ORS. V. NIRMALA DEVI & ORS.

 Decided on 04.07.2011 in the Supreme Court of India

 Justice Dalveer Bhandari & Justice Deepak Verma
 Equivalent citation- 2011 (8) SCC 249
 Theme: Delays, adjournments, & perjury
ROADMAP

 Relevant Facts & Procedural History

 Contextualization of Rules
 Issues presented
 Analysis of judgement
 Conclusion
RELEVANT FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 In 1952, Ram Parshad (Respondent) was allocated a residential house in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi by the
Government. For compassionate reasons, Ram Parshad allowed his three brothers, Madan Lal, Krishan Gopal, and
Manohar Lal (Appellants), to live with him at the said property. Subsequently, on 16.11. 1977, his brothers filed a
suit before the Delhi High Court (‘1977 case’) claiming that the property belonged to a joint Hindu family because
of adverse possession and consequently, sought partition.
 Simultaneously, Ram Parshad filed a suit before the Civil Court in 1992 (‘1992 case’) against his three brothers
praying for mandatory injunction and recovery of mesne profits. However, the 1992 case was stayed on grounds of
pendency of the 1977 case.
 Ultimately, after a grueling 24 years of litigation, the 1977 case was dismissed on 16.03.2001, and the 1992 case
stood revived.
RELEVANT FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On numerous occasions throughout the litigation, the Appellant did not appear of the hearing, sought adjournments
against costs, failed to produce evidence, and failed to adhere to the Court mandated timeline .
 Further, at every stage of the litigation, the Appellant filed applications for including inter alia amendment of written
submission for additional issues, transferring the suit, rejection of plaint on grounds of the Respondent’s failure to
pay the ad valorem court fees on the market value of the property .
 The Appellants preferred an appeal against the unfavorable orders.
 On 09.07.2010, when the matter was on the stage of final arguments, the Appellants filed an application for
reconsidering issues and treating Issue 4 on court fees and jurisdiction as the preliminary issue of the case, which was
rejected.
 The Appellant approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the suit
vide the impugned order dated 01.09.2010 with a cost of Rs. 75,000. The impugned review petition was also
dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2010.
RELEVANT RULES

ORDER XVII
Adjournment
(1) Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.—[(1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and
may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing:
(2) Costs of adjournment.—In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and [shall make such orders as to costs occasioned by the
adjournment or such higher costs as the court deems fit:]
[Provided that,—
(b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party,
(c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment,
(d) where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another Court, is put forward as a ground for
adjournment, the Court shall not grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time

Under the circumstances where a party fails to appear for a hearing, the Court may dispose the case in accordance with Order IX of the CPC including inter alia
dismissing the suit or issuing an ex parte order.
ISSUES

 Whether the delay caused by the Appellants’ actions was warranted, and whether the Appellants misled the Court?
 What measures must be taken to curb delays and perjury?
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT

High Court of Delhi’s judgement

 Frivolous Applications and Appeals: The Appellants were noted for filing frivolous applications and appeals at multiple
stages, despite the Trial Court's justified orders.
 Transfer of suit: The Court highlighted that the Appellants sought to transfer the suit to another court when they
anticipated an unfavourable order.
 Reclassification of Preliminary Issues: The Appellants sought to reclassify Issue 4 on Court fees and jurisdiction as a
preliminary issue only after production of evidence and before final arguments.
 Misleading the Court and Perjury: The Appellants provided incorrect information about the filing date of the suit in
their brief synopsis, suggesting that it was filed in 2003, while records indicated it was filed in 1992. The Court concluded
that this action aimed to mislead the judicial process.
The Court held that the delays caused by the Appellants were not justified and constituted a deliberate effort to hinder the
process.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT (CONTD.)

Supreme Court’s judgement

Principle that wrongdoers should not benefit from frivolous litigation
 The Court highlighted that administrative delays in the Indian judicial system are primarily due to unwanted and
unnecessary litigation.
 The primary driver of uncalled for litigation stems from the prevailing procedures & practices that provide
litigants with the leeway to take advantage of the judicial process.
 Litigants file frivolous applications, unwarranted claims, and defences with the aim of succumbing the other party
into settling the dispute.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT (CONTD.)

Imposing realistic costs

 Risk to Benefit ratio: Costs & penalties imposed by Courts as compared to gains from continuing the litigation is
substantially skewed towards the latter.
 The current system allows litigants to take advantage of prolongating litigation and discouraging the other party to
continue, thus resulting in unfair settlement.
 Imposing realistic and actual costs will close the gap of inherent profits for wrongdoers in the judicial system,
thus, curbing frivolous litigation.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT (CONTD.)

Perjury
 Relying on the case of Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, and Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of M.P., the Court
observed that the practice of perjury has become common and is now plaguing the Indian judicial system.
 To curb the practice of perjury and misleading the Court, the Courts should make effective use of the provisions
under Chapter XXVI of the CPC.
 To limit the practice of perjury there is a urgent need for a legislative amendment to S.340(3)(b) of the CPC to
allow the High Court to suo moto direct a judicial officer to file a complaint against a party for perjury.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT (CONTD.)

Remedial measures
A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial
judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits
are filed.
B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Code. If this
exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing
substantial justice.
C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false
pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the
parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial
proceedings.
D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities
while granting mesne profits.
E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be
issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT (CONTD.)

Remedial measures
F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be
adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.
G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.
H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the
problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice.
I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on
merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.
J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit,
right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and
the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates
of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed.
CONCLUSION

 Pragmatic Approach to Imposing Costs: The Court emphasized considering the actual costs incurred by defendants/respondents in contesting
litigation across different courts, including legal fees, counter-affidavit preparation, miscellaneous charges, and other court-related expenses.
 Guidelines for Cost Assessment: The guidelines aim to balance preventing delays and avoiding rushed justice, reflecting the principle that
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
 Comprehensive Legal Fees Assessment: The assessment should compare the legal fees and related expenses of the plaintiff and defendant,
including costs for legal representation, typing, printing, and court fees for document preparation and filing.
 Addressing Delayed and Hasty Justice: The Court seeks to minimize delayed justice while ensuring no hasty conclusions, suggesting that
changes might require a period of adaptation but would ultimately enhance civil court processes.
 Factors to Consider in Cost Imposition: Beyond legal fees and associated costs, the Court emphasized considering the duration of litigation,
especially when defendants are engaged in protracted legal disputes, as these prolonged cases cause distress and deplete judicial resources.
 Appellants' Deceitful Practices and Long Legal Disputes: The Appellants' involvement in deceitful legal proceedings over four decades led to
significant distress for defendants and contributed to prolonged legal disputes. These factors are crucial in determining fair and comprehensive
legal expenses.
THANK YOU!