JUDGMENT Hon’ble S. K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri Awadhesh Pratap Singh, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Smt. Rama Goel, learned Advocate who appeared for the private respondent. 2. Challenge in this petition is the orders passed by the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner for injunction in respect to property in dispute was dismissed in default and thereafter restoration was also rejected and revision filed by the petitioners also failed. 3. Normally by noticing the nature of the order by which suit is dismissed in default and restoration is rejected this Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction exercising the equity powers has to take lenient view so as to advance substantial justice but at the same time if interference by this Court in the equity powers has an effect of doing injustice to other side then that is to be refused. 4. Here is the case which can be said to be one of most glaring example of the high handedness on the part of the petitioners and an effort of disobeying his own undertaking given before this Court and also before the Apex Court and, therefore, when the arguments started and Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition pointing out facts in brief then seeing conduct of the petitioners, learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked by this Court to cut short the argument so that precious time of the Court is not wasted as large number of litigants are in queue of getting hearing in respect to their fresh cases besides large number of hearing cases but learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted for lengthy arguments and placed all the facts from very beginning to end and several decisions on the point which was totally uncalled for but to avoid any confrontation, this Court has no option but to hear the matter but with the caution to the learned Counsel for the petitioners that if this Court ultimately is not in the agreement with the arguments then a heavy cost can be imposed to which learned Counsel agreed. 5. In view of the aforesaid, now this Court has to notice the arguments of both sides and to deal the same. 6. 5. In view of the aforesaid, now this Court has to notice the arguments of both sides and to deal the same. 6. Before noticing the arguments from the rival sides it will be useful to notice the facts in brief so as to give a clear picture of the facts which may facilitate this Court to arrive at a easy solution of the matter. 7. A suit was filed in the civil Court by the petitioner side claiming rights on the ground that they have been put in possession over the property in dispute under an unregistered agreement to sell but that agreement to sell was denied by the landlord. Before the matter could proceed on the merits the suit was dismissed in default. The restoration filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. Revision filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed then a writ petition was filed in this Court i.e. writ petition No. 25236 of 1991 in which an injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners about their dispossession from the property in question. In the meantime a vacancy in respect to premises was declared against which writ petition was filed from the petitioner side i.e. Writ Petition No. 25484 of 2002 but in that writ petition no stay was granted to the petitioner. It is thereafter a release order was passed in respect to premises in the year 2002 against which a revision was filed which was also dismissed then the present petitioners filed writ petition in this Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 24113 of 2006 which was decided by this Court by its judgment dated 24.3.2006. This Court taking note of all these facts mentioned above dismissed the writ petition. This Court approved the undertaking to be given by the petitioners to vacate the premises within six months. Against the order of this Court petitioner filed S.L.P. which was also dismissed on 16.10.2006 and the Apex Court directed the petitioners/appellants to handover the possession by 30.4.2007. Instead of having the undertaking and mandate of this Court and Apex Court petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the defendant-landlord, seeking protection from their eviction from the premises in question and seeking relief that the orders passed by the Rent Control authorities in respect to vacancy and release be declared as void. Instead of having the undertaking and mandate of this Court and Apex Court petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the defendant-landlord, seeking protection from their eviction from the premises in question and seeking relief that the orders passed by the Rent Control authorities in respect to vacancy and release be declared as void. The suit filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners again was dismissed in default upon which a restoration was filed but that too was rejected and revision was also dismissed by noticing all these facts and thus against the orders passed by the Courts below this petition is by the petitioners who remained unsuccessful up to the Apex Court. 8. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the civil Court jurisdiction is not barred on the facts of the present case and, therefore, on dismissal of the suit in default the application for restoration was liable to be allowed and thus the Court below in rejecting the petitioners application has committed manifest error. Submission of the learned Counsel to strengthen the claim of the petitioners is also based on the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. In support of the submission that the suit of the plaintiff cannot be said to be barred reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court given in the case of Hira Lal v. Mast Ram and others, 1994 (2) A.R.C. 502. Another decision on the same point has been cited, reported in AIR 1988 (P&H) 37 (Phula Flam and others v. Mehada and others). To support the submission that in the matter of restoration lenient view is to be taken reliance has been placed on a judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Rifiq and another v. Munshilal and another, AIR 1981 SC 1400 , judgment given in the case of G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, 2000 All CJ. 1390 and in the case of Malkiat Singh and another v. Joginder Singh and others, 1998 ARC 156. It is on the aforesaid premises the submission is that in order to do the justice between the parties application filed by the applicant for revival of the proceedings was liable to be allowed. 9. 1390 and in the case of Malkiat Singh and another v. Joginder Singh and others, 1998 ARC 156. It is on the aforesaid premises the submission is that in order to do the justice between the parties application filed by the applicant for revival of the proceedings was liable to be allowed. 9. In response to the aforesaid Smt. Goel submits that so far the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners about rights of the petitioners in view of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned it cannot be available to petitioners in view of Section 38 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Smt. Goel submits that in view of Section 37 of the Act the finality has to be attached to the orders passed by the rent control authorities in relation to the vacancy and release which otherwise became final up to the Apex Court and, therefore, filing of the suit by the petitioners can be safely termed to be abuse of the process of the Court and thus petitioners are not entitled for any indulgence. It is further submitted that before this Court an undertaking was given to vacate the premises within a period of six months and that time was extended by the Apex Court and that was to expire on 30.4.2007 and, therefore purpose of filing of the suit by the petitioners is to frustrate the orders of this Court and that of the Apex Court. Filing of suit cannot be said to be a genuine and bonafide exercise on the part of the petitioners. In support of the submission that the suit of the plaintiffs cannot be said to be maintainable, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court reported in 1988 (1) A.R.C. 113, Mahendra Singh v. Xth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others and another decision has been referred in this context reported in 1996 JRJ 698, Jai Prakash v. Krishna Devi and others. In support of the submission that where the statute gives finality to the order of the special tribunal the civil Court’s jurisdiction must be held to be excluded, reliance has been placed on a judgment given by the Apex Court in Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 SC 78 . In support of the submission that where the statute gives finality to the order of the special tribunal the civil Court’s jurisdiction must be held to be excluded, reliance has been placed on a judgment given by the Apex Court in Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 SC 78 . To support the submission that if undertaking has been given by the petitioners for doing a particular act then he is bound by the same, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court reported in 1988 (1) A.R.C. 113 (supra). In the last it has been submitted that it has been recently said by the Apex Court that in the case where it is found that there is misuse of the process, the party has to be awarded an exemplary cost so as to prevent others from misusing the process of the Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has to deal with the situation. 11. So far the case in hand is concerned there is no dispute about the fact that first suit filed from the petitioner side was dismissed in default and thereafter restoration and revision failed but on filing writ petition before this Court i.e. writ petition No. 25326 of 1991 they were granted stay in respect to the premises in question. In the meantime on declaration of the vacancy in respect to premises a writ petition was filed by the petitioner i.e. writ petition No. 25484 of 2002 in which no stay was granted and thus a release order came to be passed against which a revision was filed but that was dismissed upon which petitioners came to this Court by filing writ petition No. 24113 of 2006. When the writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 24113 of 2006 was finally disposed of all these facts were noticed by this Court and ultimately this was found that challenge to the order of release is not acceptable and thus this Court directed the enforcement of the release order. This was clearly said that the restraint order passed in writ petition No. 25336 of 1991 will not come in the way of the authorities and thus injunction granted in favour of the petitioners in first writ petition was also withdrawn. This was clearly said that the restraint order passed in writ petition No. 25336 of 1991 will not come in the way of the authorities and thus injunction granted in favour of the petitioners in first writ petition was also withdrawn. Faced with the situation the petitioners requested before this Court that they may be given time to vacate the premises upon which this Court permitted filing of an undertaking to vacate the premises within six months upon which undertaking was also filed. Instead of vacating the premises within a period of six months and the petitioners filed Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court but they could not succeed. The Apex Court again permitted the vacation of the premises by the petitioners by 30.4.2007. Thus there is no dispute about the fact that litigation between the parties in respect to declaration of the vacancy and release about the premises came up to this Court and went up to the Apex Court and ultimately it attained finality and both Courts i.e. this Court and the Apex Court directed vacation of the premises within the time bound frame. In view of the above it is clear that present move of petitioners is just abuse of the process of the Court which this Court will have to restrict. 12. So far the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that suit filed by the petitioners in view of the decision cited by him is maintainable suffice it to say that this Court finds that the decision on which reliance has been placed have no application on the facts of the present case and on the other hand decisions on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the respondent have full application to the facts of the present case. 13. Finality has been attached to the proceedings and the orders passed by the rent control authorities and, therefore, unless it can be said that was without jurisdiction, it cannot be permitted to be reconsidered by the civil Court, specially when the orders passed by the rent control authorities have been examined by this Court and also by the Apex Court. Finality has been attached to the proceedings and the orders passed by the rent control authorities and, therefore, unless it can be said that was without jurisdiction, it cannot be permitted to be reconsidered by the civil Court, specially when the orders passed by the rent control authorities have been examined by this Court and also by the Apex Court. Here is the case where the orders passed by rent control authorities was challenged before this Court and also before the Apex Court wherein the claim of the petitioner in the light of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was also taken and therefore argument of learned Counsel about the claim of petitioners based on Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act also cannot be entertained. On these facts this Court is not satisfied that the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners has any substance in respect to the jurisdiction of the Court. 14. So far the question about taking lenient view, in view of nature of order is concerned, this Court observed in the opening paragraph that in these matters lenient view is to be taken in order to do justice between the parties but exercise of the jurisdiction if is to cause injustice to other side then that is to be refused from being exercised. Here is the case where this Court can safely conclude from the facts and details so narrated that there is no question of showing any leniency. At this stage observation of the Apex Court in the recent judgment given in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, 2005 (2) ARC 588 as made in para 39 of the judgment will be useful to be quoted here : “39. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs or not awarded or nominal costs are awarded on the unsuccessful parties. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35 (2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages filling of frivolous suits. It also leads to taking up of frivolous suits. It also lead to taking up of frivolous defenses. Further wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. In large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35 (2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages filling of frivolous suits. It also leads to taking up of frivolous suits. It also lead to taking up of frivolous defenses. Further wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. When Section 35 (2) provides for costs to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are reasonably incurred by a successful party except in those cases where the Court in its discretion may direct otherwise by recording reasons thereof. The costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of the time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental costs besides the party of the Court fee, lawyers fee, typing and other cost in relation to the litigation. It is for the High Courts to examine these aspects and other costs in relation to litigation. It is for the High Courts to examine these aspects and wherever necessary may requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines for the subordinate Courts to follow.” 15. Apex Court has allowed imposition of realistic amount towards cost if it is found that the proceedings is frivolous. So far the case in hand is concerned the landlord tenant having obtained order of release in his favour in the year 2002 has not been able to obtain fruits of the order of release and even of direction of this Court which was given in its judgment dated 24.3.2006 by which restraint order granted in another writ petition was vacated and the order of release was directed to be enforced. Thus on the facts of the present case this Court having found that the petitioner is guilty of misusing the process of the Court has to be denied the discretion in exercise of the powers under Article 226 which is meant to do justice between the parties. 16. Accordingly this Court is not to intervene in the impugned order and thus the writ petition has to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly this writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 18. On the facts this Court directs that the petitioners are to pay Rs. 16. Accordingly this Court is not to intervene in the impugned order and thus the writ petition has to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly this writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 18. On the facts this Court directs that the petitioners are to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the landlord tenant as cost for misusing the process and for causing harassment to landlord as indicated. 19. Before the order was signed a mention was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that cost so directed to be paid may be waived as now good sense has prevailed with the petitioners and they having utmost respect to the order of this Court are ready to handover peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 21.5.2007. 20. In view of the aforesaid Smt. Goel, learned Advocate who represents the respondents submits that although on the facts submission of the petitioners side have no justification but to get a happy end of the scene and to avoid forcible dispossession and any kind of hardship to the petitioners, her client is ready to accept the prayer as made from the petitioner side but now this time the undertaking which is to be given has to be ascertained to be a true undertaking and not to be a false like the first one and thus petitioners are to be directed to file a fresh affidavit in this Court for the purpose with a further rider that if this time there is any violation of the undertaking given before this Court then petitioners will face the proceedings of contempt and at the same time their forcible ouster from the premises. 21. After hearing the aforesaid, Sri Singh who appears for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to file the required affidavit. 22. Accordingly office is directed to put up this matter on 8.5.2007 as fresh by which date joint affidavit is to be filed: in this Court by all petitioners so that appropriate final orders may be passed. ————