Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 782 (ALL)

CHANDRIKA v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2018-04-03

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “(i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.2.2018, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur. (ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide revision within time bound passed in Revision No. 909 of 2017-18, Ram Dulare v. Raj Pati.” 2. The Deputy Director, Consolidation on 12.2.2018 has entertained the revision of the contesting respondents and granted an interim order fixing 28.2.2018 for objections. Aggrieved by the said order present petition has been preferred. 3. In my opinion the writ petition is totally frivolous as it is against an interim order passed by the D.D.C.. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470 , has taken a judicial note that huge number of frivolous petitions are choking roaster of the Courts. The Supreme Court put a note of caution that the High Courts should discourage such type of litigation and should impose heavy costs. In the case of Phool Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 112 , the Supreme Court has held that the High Courts should curb the tendency of filing frivolous writ petitions by imposing heavy costs on the petitioners and the advocates too. Relevant part of the judgment in Phool Chandra (supra) is extracted below: “12. All these are aberrations in the functioning of the Apex Court of any country. Of late, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the Courts, including this Court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the Court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the Court and who are expected to assist the Court tender proper advice to their clients. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if the learned counsel who are officers of the Court and who are expected to assist the Court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done. 13. It is high time that the Courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on the learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner. {Vide Varinderpal Singh v. M.R. Sharma, 1986 Supp SCC 719, Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 1, and Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani, (2012) 8 SCC 781 : AIR 2012 SC 2881 .}” (emphasis supplied) 4. Applying the said law in the present writ petition, I find that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. In the present case under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the opposite party has filed the revision aggrieved by the order of S.O.C. dated 24.1.2018 whereby he had allowed the application of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. The order of C.O. was not in favour of the opposite party, Ram Dularey, hence he preferred the revision. The D.D.C. entertained the revision and fixed a short date for hearing the petition. The petitioner has rushed to the Court against the said order. The second prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the D.D.C. to decide the revision within time fixed by the Court. 5. The D.D.C. entertained the revision and fixed a short date for hearing the petition. The petitioner has rushed to the Court against the said order. The second prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the D.D.C. to decide the revision within time fixed by the Court. 5. In my opinion the second prayer is also misconceived. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others v. Ali Isteba and others, 2015(2) ADJ 250 (DB), has held that the High Court in exercise of its power, ordinarily, should not issue a direction to the subordinate Courts to expedite the matter. The law laid down by the Court is extracted herein below: “2. We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High Court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order. 3. Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disabililty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.” 6. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.” 6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is an agriculturist, the Court defers the costs, however, it is made clear that if the writ petitioner Chandrika son of late Raj Pati files any writ petition during pendency of the said case seeking similar relief, the High Court Registry shall not register the writ petition unless the petitioner deposits costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 7. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed.