Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 308 (AP)

Mohd. Aftab Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ahmad

2012-03-20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : This is a piece of litigation which is indulged in by the petitioner with the sole aim of frustrating the decree obtained by respondent No.1 by raising the most frivolous objection regarding the Power of Attorney held by respondent No.1. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are, respondent No.1 through his General Power of Attorney filed O.S.No.1730 of 1996 in the Court of the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner and respondent No.2. The said suit was decreed by the lower Court on 03.04.2006. The said judgment was confirmed in A.S.No.204 of 2006 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009. The petitioner, thereafter, filed S.A.No.244 of 2009. In the second appeal, the petitioner filed S.A.M.P.No.679 of 2009 for permission to retain the possession for one academic year and to permit him to vacate the premises thereafter. Having considered the said petition, this Court while dismissing the second appeal granted permission to the petitioner to vacate the premises on or before 10.04.2010. Thereafter, on the eve of expiry of one year time granted by this Court, the petitioner filed S.A.M.P.No.706 of 2010 for extension of time by another six months. This Court by order, dated 09.04.2010, extended time up to 10.10.2010. Not being satisfied with the same, the petitioner filed another application namely S.A.M.P.No.2378 of 2010. This Court has extended its discretion in favour of the petitioner by again extending time up to 31.05.2011 ‘finally’ by order, dated 20.10.2010. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner again moved one more application i.e., S.A.M.P.No.1219 of 2011 for further extension of time. The said application was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 31.05.2011, extending time till 31.07.2011 by making it clear that no further extension will be granted. The petitioner has once again filed another application i.e., S.A.M.P.No.1931 of 2011 for further extension of time. This Court by order, dated 29.07.2011, has dismissed the said application. The said application was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 31.05.2011, extending time till 31.07.2011 by making it clear that no further extension will be granted. The petitioner has once again filed another application i.e., S.A.M.P.No.1931 of 2011 for further extension of time. This Court by order, dated 29.07.2011, has dismissed the said application. As the petitioner failed to hand over the possession after expiry of the time last extended by this Court, the landlord-respondent No.1 got filed E.A.No.194 of 2011 through his General Power of Attorney holder namely Habeeb Ali for permission to him to pursue the E.P. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that his earlier General Power of Attorney holder Mohd. Yousuf died on 12.10.2010 and that, therefore, it has become necessary for him to appoint a new General Power of Attorney i.e., Habeeb Ali to pursue the E.P. This application was resisted by the petitioner. The lower Court having considered the application has allowed the same by rejecting the objections. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. From the facts noted above, it is quite evident that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the helpless situation of the absentee landlord, who is staying abroad, by raising frivolous objections on the General Power of Attorney appointed by the landlord for pursuing the E.P. The petitioner undoubtedly belongs to the category of litigants whose sole aim is to take undue advantage of due process of law which is envisaged to protect fair litigants. By filing a petition in the second appeal, he has undertaken to vacate the premises if one year time is granted. This Court extended its discretion in the petitioner’s favour by granting an year’s time. The petitioner has thereafter taken as many as three extensions by gaining more than two year’s time. He was still not satisfied with the advantage he was conferred by this Court. In all fairness, the petitioner, who is the beneficiary indulgence shown by this Court from time to time not only by granting as much as one year’s time to vacate the premises but also by extending time on as many as three subsequent occasions, ought to have handed over the vacant possession to the landlord through his G.P.A. Instead, he has indulged in unfair litigation. While I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of the lower Court in rejecting the frivolous and vexatious objections of the petitioner for the new G.P.A. to come on record to represent the landlord, I have no doubt in my mind that the present civil revision petition is filed only with an intention to keep the E.P. pending. The petitioner has thus indulged in grave abuse of process of the law and the Courts. His conduct deserves severe condemnation and indictment. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only). The respondent is entitled to recover the same. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.1826 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.