ORDER : “The pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.” Thus spoke Justice Krishna Iyer in his inimitable language. He without hesitation condemned the petitioner for gross abuse of the process of the Court. The Apex Court in T.Aravindam v. TV Satyapal, AIR 1977 SC 2421 after giving the facts and showing how the plaintiff had time and again been misusing the process of the Court held as follows: “5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now, pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: “It is dangerous to be too good.” This present litigation is a stark example of dubious, imaginative and vexatious litigation and the question is whether it should be nipped in the bud or not. 2. This litigation has a long and chequered history. Smt. Sandhya Devi Thapa, who is one of the petitioners in the present civil revision, filed a Title Suit in the year 1995. This Title Suit was numbered as Title Suit 38/1995. 2. This litigation has a long and chequered history. Smt. Sandhya Devi Thapa, who is one of the petitioners in the present civil revision, filed a Title Suit in the year 1995. This Title Suit was numbered as Title Suit 38/1995. In this Suit, Sandhya Devi Thapa claimed that the suit land as described in schedule A(3) in the plaint was given to her as her share by way of family arrangement. She prayed that she may be declared as the owner of the land and she also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants to remove the structure standing on the suit land and to give her the possession thereof. The case of Sandhya Devi Thapa was that she along with her mother, brothers and sisters had inherited the suit land mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint. Further, it was alleged that in the year 1975, her mother, brothers and sisters sold away some portion of the inherited land described in Schedule A/1 in favour of her husband Dal Bahadur Thapa by a registered sale deed for consideration. Further according to Sandhya Devi all the defendants jointly sold another plot of land described in Schedule A/2 to one Smt. Uma Dutta by registered sale deed dated 16.10.1984. Thereafter, the remaining land of Schedule A was partitioned between the family members. A sketch map was drawn indicating their respective shares therein. Her case was that as per this arrangement the suit land in Schedule A(3) came to her share. She also stated that the defendants sold land described in Schedule A(4) to one Sabita Saha vide registered sale deed dated 07.02.1987. Further case of Smt. Sandhya Devi was that the defendants i.e. her mother, brothers and sisters agreed to remove a portion of the house standing on the suit land under her occupation but when she asked them to do so in December, 1994, they refused to do so. Hence, this suit. 3. The defendants including Anjali Devi Thapa filed a written statement contesting the suit on various grounds. With regard to the property at Schedule A(1) it was stated that they have never sold the land in favour of the husband of Sandhya Devi. However, since he was a retired Army personnel, this land was transferred in his favour to enable him to take a house building loan as proposed by Sandhya Devi. With regard to the property at Schedule A(1) it was stated that they have never sold the land in favour of the husband of Sandhya Devi. However, since he was a retired Army personnel, this land was transferred in his favour to enable him to take a house building loan as proposed by Sandhya Devi. According to the other brothers and sisters her share was only on the land in Schedule A(1) and she had no other share in the property. 4. After trial the suit was decreed in favour of Sandhya Devi on 16.08.1996. The defendants including Anjali Devi Thapa filed Title Appeal No.66 of 1996 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 20th June, 1997. Thereafter, the defendants including Anjali Devi Thapa preferred Second Appeal No. 26/1997 before this Court. The judgment and decree of the courts below were set aside on the ground that one vital issue of limitation had not been framed and the suit was remanded to the trial Court with a direction for framing the issue. Additional issue was framed as to whether the suit was barred by time. However, it appears that the suit was virtually tried de novo. Again the suit was decreed on 27.05.1998 but it was held that there was no partition between the brothers and sisters and, therefore, Anjali Devi Thapa and others could not be directed to vacate the suit land until and unless the suit land was partitioned. The family arrangement was held to be not proved. 5. Thereafter, Sandhya Devi filed appeal No. being T.A.30 of 1998 and the defendants including Anjali Devi Thapa filed appeal No. T.A.31 of 1998. By a common judgment dated 17.01.2000 the appellate court allowed the appeal of Sandhya Devi and dismissed the appeal of the defendants and held that Sandhya Devi was the owner of the land described in Schedule A(3) to the plaint. Two appeals were filed being RSA 15 of 2000 and RSA 16 of 2000 by the defendants including Anjali Devi Thapa. Actually, only one appeal was required to be filed. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the brothers and sisters and upheld the judgment of the appellate court. 6. Two appeals were filed being RSA 15 of 2000 and RSA 16 of 2000 by the defendants including Anjali Devi Thapa. Actually, only one appeal was required to be filed. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the brothers and sisters and upheld the judgment of the appellate court. 6. Till this stage, when this appeal was decided on 27.02.2004 no ground was ever raised that Anjali Devi Thapa was mentally infirm or was unable to look after her own interest. After the appeal was disposed of, an application for amendment of the decree was filed by Sandhya Devi Thapa. This amendment related to the description of the schedule of the suit land as amended vide order of amendment dated 11.01.2003. Before the appeal had been decided the description of the suit land had been amended but in the decree that amendment was not reflected. 7. When notices were issued in this application for amendment of the decree, a report was received from Dr. J Chakraborty, Psychiatrist in which it was stated that Smt. Anjali Thapa is suffering from chronic Psychosis and thereafter her brother Bishnu Singh Thapa was appointed as her guardian. No objection was raised even at this stage that the entire decree was null and void. 8. Sandhya Devi then filed execution petition No. Execution (T) 23 of 2005 in the court of Civil Judge for execution of the decree and in that case objections under Section 47 of the CPC were filed. Those objections were rejected and thereafter Anjali Devi Thapa and others filed CRP 09 of 2006 which was also dismissed and decided in favour of Sandhya Devi and finally the decree was executed and possession of the land taken over after demolition of the structure. 9. In the year 2010, Anjali Singh Thapa filed a suit which was registered as T.S. No.19 of 2010 and this suit was filed through the same Bishnu Singh Thapa, her brother. The grievance of the petitioner was that in the civil suit T.S. 38 of 1995 she was never properly served since she was mentally retarded and she was not properly represented. The main grievance of the plaintiff in this suit is that the entire proceedings arising out of T.S. 38 of 1995 are totally illegal since she was not properly represented. The main grievance of the plaintiff in this suit is that the entire proceedings arising out of T.S. 38 of 1995 are totally illegal since she was not properly represented. Therefore, she has not only challenged the proceedings in the Title Suit but also the appeals filed on her behalf both before the District Judge and before this Court. 10. The petitioners filed a written statement and raised various objections and one of the main objections was that Anjali Devi Thapa could not be permitted to raise the plea that she was mentally infirm because no such plea had been raised in the earlier petitions. The defendants also filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying that the plaint be rejected. This application was rejected on 12.04.2005. Smt. Sandhya Devi Thapa then challenged this order by filing Civil Revision Petition 20 of 2011 before the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court. This petition was dismissed and while dismissing the petition this Court directed that the trial Judge shall frame issues and it is up to the learned trial Judge to decide whether he should proceed to hear the case on the preliminary issues. Thereafter, the following the issues were framed on 04.09.2012: “(1). Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? (2). Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for filing the suit? (3). Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? (4). Whether the registered sale deed No.1-11635 dated 12.12.1975 is liable to be declared void and cancel? (5). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession in respect of schedule 'E' land and for permanent injunction as prayed for? (6). Whether the plaintiff is mentally retarded person since her childhood? (7). Whether any other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?” 11. Thereafter, on 27.03.2014 the defendants in this suit filed an application under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for framing of preliminary issues. On 20.08.2015 the Court directed that the issue of res judicata and constructive res judicata and maintainability of the suit could be treated as preliminary issues and accordingly, directed that issue No.3 be treated as preliminary issue. On 20.08.2015 the Court directed that the issue of res judicata and constructive res judicata and maintainability of the suit could be treated as preliminary issues and accordingly, directed that issue No.3 be treated as preliminary issue. Thereafter, on 24.06.2015 the learned trial Court held that it was impossible to decide issue No.3 as a preliminary issue without deciding issue No.6 and therefore decided to proceed with the trial of the suit. This order is under challenge. 12. It is urged by Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel that the second suit is an abuse of the process of the Court. According to him, this is not a normal case of treating the earlier decisions as res judicata. He submits that this is a case where Anjali Devi Thapa, her mother, her brothers and sisters had submitted to the judicion of the Court in the earlier cases. Anjali Devi Thapa had contested the suit and now after the decree in the earlier suit has been executed she cannot be allowed to argue that the decree is totally illegal and not binding on her since she was mentally infirm and unable to look after her own interests. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in T. Aravindam v. T. V. Satyapal, AIR 1977 SC 2421 which has already been quoted above. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai and Anr., AIR 2003 SC 718 wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “21. For the purpose of disposal of the suit on the admitted facts, particularly when the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issues, no particular procedure was required to be followed by the High Court. In terms of Order LIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Civil Court can dispose of a suit on preliminary issues. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the issues of res judicata and/constructive res judicata as also the maintainability of the suit can be adjudicated upon as preliminary issues. Such issues, in fact, when facts are admitted, ordinarily should be decided as preliminary issues. ……………………………………………….. ……………………………………………….. 28. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the issues of res judicata and/constructive res judicata as also the maintainability of the suit can be adjudicated upon as preliminary issues. Such issues, in fact, when facts are admitted, ordinarily should be decided as preliminary issues. ……………………………………………….. ……………………………………………….. 28. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, if the learned single Judge of the High Court had withdrawn the suit and disposed of the same on the admitted facts; we do not find any illegality therein. The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench have held that the suit was not maintainable, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant herein had no locus standi to question the relationship of the 1st respondent with the admitted owner of the property, namely, Mangal Singh.” 13. On the other hand, the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat v. Inder Kumar, AIR 2015 SC 3357 . That judgment in my view is not applicable because it relates to rejection of a plaint and not for treating the issue as a preliminary issue. At this stage it would be pertinent to point out that I had heard this matter on many occasions and had clearly indicated to the respondents to produce any documents to show that Anjali Devi Thapa was mentally infirm or unfit prior to the decision of the Regular Second Appeals No. 15 of 2000 and 16 of 2000. 14. We must remember that it was for the first time after the regular second appeals were decided that a report came that Anjali Devi Thapa was suffering from a mental illness. Prior to that Anjali Devi Thapa had signed power of attorney and filed written statement in person in a civil suit filed by Sandhya Devi Thapa. She had challenged the decree passed in the suit. That appeal was dismissed. She thereafter filed an appeal. That appeal was partly allowed and the matter remanded to the trial Court for decision after framing a fresh issue of limitation. After the case was tried afresh the suit of Sandhya Devi was dismissed. Then Sandhya Devi filed an appeal which was contested and the appeal was decided in favour of Sandhya Devi Thapa. Thereafter, two RSAs were filed on behalf of Sandhya Devi Thapa and in these two RSAs also she was represented by counsel. After the case was tried afresh the suit of Sandhya Devi was dismissed. Then Sandhya Devi filed an appeal which was contested and the appeal was decided in favour of Sandhya Devi Thapa. Thereafter, two RSAs were filed on behalf of Sandhya Devi Thapa and in these two RSAs also she was represented by counsel. 15. I have perused the record of these two RSAs where Anjali Devi Thapa is the first appellant. She had filed this appeal through Sri A De, Advocate and was represented by Sri AM Lodh, a learned senior counsel of this Court. She did not file the appeal through any person but had filed it in her own capacity. She has signed the Vakalatnama in the appeal. The moot question is whether now she can be permitted to urge that she was not mentally fit. 16. From the facts stated hereinabove, it is more than obvious that Anjali Devi Thapa not only contested the civil suit filed by Sandhay Devi Thapa but also filed appeals and second appeals against the suit. From 1995 to 2004, i.e. nine long years, neither Anjali Devi Thapa nor her mother or her brothers and sisters informed this Court that she is mentally infirm. For the first time when the notice was sent for amendment of the decree, was a certificate given that Anjali Devi Thapa is suffering from chronic psychosis. Thereafter, Bishnu Singh Thapa was appointed as a guardian by this Court. He did not care to file any suit immediately after 2005 when he was appointed as guardian nor did he challenge the decree passed in RSA Nos.15 and 16 of 2000 before the Apex court by contending that the decree had been passed against his sister who is a mentally infirm person. Bishnu Singh Thapa contested the execution petition, filed revision petition etc., and this plea was never taken. 17. The present suit was filed after more than 5 years, in 2010. This suit has been filed by the same Bishnu Singh Thapa. If the plaintiff is mentally infirm and cannot decide what is her interest then who will look after her interest? 17. The present suit was filed after more than 5 years, in 2010. This suit has been filed by the same Bishnu Singh Thapa. If the plaintiff is mentally infirm and cannot decide what is her interest then who will look after her interest? Her brother Bishnu Singh Thapa has appeared on her behalf but he is the same person who was contesting the earlier petitions and from the record I find that he was the person who has signed all the affidavits and was pursuing the litigation on behalf of the brothers and sisters. It is more than obvious that Bishnu Singh Thapa has filed this suit not for the benefit of Anjali Singh Thapa but for his own interest. In case Anjali Singh Thapa is mentally infirm how will she be benefited by getting the land vacated because she, in fact, cannot look after the land. Obviously, Bishnu Singh Thapa is the person who is interested in pursuing the litigation with a view to ensuring that the litigation does not come to an end and that the fight continues. It is more than obvious that he is not pursuing the litigation for the benefit of Anjali Singh Thapa but for his own benefit. 18. Another aspect of the matter is that the decree has been executed. Assuming for the sake of argument that Anjali Singh Thapa was not bound by the decree, all the other brothers and sisters were bound by the decree and since it is not pleaded that there is any partition between the remaining brothers and sisters, the share of Anjali Singh Thapa can come out of the share of the other brothers and sisters. The decree which is a joint decree against Smt. Anjali Singh Thapa, Smt. Arati Singh Thapa, Smt. Tulsi Devi Thapa, Smt. Devi Thapa, and Sri. Bishnu Singh Thapa, cannot be set at naught on the ground that Anjali Singh Thapa was mentally infirm. At this stage it would be pertinent to mention that despite my specifically asking the counsel for the appellant to produce any record prior to 2004 to show that Anjali Singh Thapa was mentally infirm no such record has been produced by the petitioners despite several opportunities having been given. The only material relied upon is the report of Dr. J Chakraborty, Psychiatrist, which is of the year 2005. The only material relied upon is the report of Dr. J Chakraborty, Psychiatrist, which is of the year 2005. There is no material to show that from 1995 to 2005 Anjali Singh Thapa was mentally infirm. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Daya Shankar Lal Vs. Inder Kumar, AIR 2015 SC 7357 is misplaced. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and in the present case it is not so much the principle of res judicata but the question of the maintainability of the suit which is involved and as stated hereinabove, this appears to be a vexatious and frivolous litigation which must be dealt with at the threshold. 19. For the foregoing reasons, I am clearly of the view that the suit now filed by Sri. Bishnu Singh Thapa is a total abuse of the process of the Court. He has filed the suit not for the benefit or interest of his sister Anjali Devi Thapa but with a view to continue the litigation in a case where the decree has already been executed. This is the litigation which should be rejected at the threshold. The claim on the face of it is false and vexatious. It is manifestly meritless and does not disclose a clear right to sue. The long arm of the law must throttle such frivolous and vexatious litigation at the threshold and nip such litigation in the bud if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judiciary is to survive. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, I am clearly of the view that this is an exceptional case where the Court must decide issue No.3 as a preliminary issue even if it requires to be dealt with issue No.6 and further requires recording of any witness. The only evidence which can be led is to show that Anjali Devi Thapa was mentally infirm from 1995 till 2005 and even if she is mentally infirm after 1995 to 2005 that will not help her because a guardian was appointed by the Court. 20. In view of the above discussion the order of the learned trial Court is set aside. It is directed to decide issue No.3 and if necessary issue No.6 as preliminary issues keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 20. In view of the above discussion the order of the learned trial Court is set aside. It is directed to decide issue No.3 and if necessary issue No.6 as preliminary issues keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Furthermore, the evidence, if any, shall only be permitted to be led with regard to the mental illness of Anjali Devi Thapa. No other evidence is required because this is a case calling in question the previous judgment and decree and, therefore, the very maintainability of the suit itself is in question. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of both the issues within two months from today keeping in view the facts stated hereinabove and the law laid down in the Apex Court in T. Aravindam (supra). The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.