DNYANDEO SABAJI NAIK AND ANR. versus MRS. PRADNYA PRAKASH KHADEKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 01-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 2 S.C.R. 95 
DNYANDEO SABAJ! NAIK AND ANR. 
v. 
MRS. PRADNYA PRAKASH KHADEKAR AND ORS. 
(SLP (C) Nos. 25331-25333 of2015) 
MARCH 01, 2017 
jJAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD · 
AND SANJi\ Y Kl SHAN KAUL, JJ.j 
Administration <!f Justice: 
Suit for recovery of possession of premises given under 
Conducting Agreement - Decreed - Appellate Court granting time 
of one year to vacate the premises on the basis of the undertaking 
given by the defendant-petitioner - Time further extended/or 4 
months - Thereafter defendant filing Review Petition and also 
seeking extension of time for further 5 years - Dismissal of - On 
appeal, held: The petitioners having sought and obtained the benefit 
of order granting them time to vacate the premises and having 
furnished unconditional undertaking to vacate the premises, it would 
be an abuse of the process for the petitioners to seek recourse to 
their remedies on the merits of the issues - The Court must view with 
disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process - Frivolous 
and groundless filing constitute a serious menace to the 
administration of justice - Liberal access to justice does not mean 
access to chaos and indiscipline - It is duty of every court to firmly 
deal with such situation - The imposition of exemplary costs is a 
necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well 
as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases - The defendants are 
directed to vacate the pre111/ses - Defendants are to pay costs 
quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs - Costs. 
Respondent granted the premises in question to the petitioner under 
a conducting agreement for carrying on the business oflaundry. Suit for 
recovery of possession was filed by landlord. Trial Court decreed the 
suit. In First Appeal, Single Judge of High Court directed the tenant to 
vacate the premises and on the basis of undertaking given by the tenant, 
granted one year time to vacate the premises. Further extension of time 
was granted for 4 months. Thereafter tenant filed Review Petition and 
· application for extension of time to vacate the premises for further period 
95 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
of five years. The petition was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the 
present petitions. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-l 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that the filing of an 
undertaking does not disentitle a litigant to question the legality 
of the judgment dismissing the First Appe.al. The petitioners 
sought and obtained the benefit of an order granting them a period 
of one year to vacate the premises. The matter did not rest there. 
The petitioners moved the High Court again for extension of 
time which was allowed to them by an order dated 5 December 
2014. This sequence of events leaves no manner of doubt that 
the undertaking was not called for by the High Court to secure 
the occupation of the premises during the period that the 
petitioner would have required to further assail the order of the 
High Court in this Court. The petitioners, on the contrary, clearly 
indicated that they would rest content with a time of one year to 
vacate the premises and in fact obtained a further extension of 
time of four months even after the expiry of the initial term of 
one year. Having furnished an unconditional undertaking to vacate 
the premises, it would be manifestly an abuse of the process for 
the petitioners to seek recourse to their remedies on the merits 
of the issues which arose in the First Appeal. [Paras 8, 9, 11) 
[102-:F-G; 103-C-D, E-F; 104-C-D) 
P R Deshpande v. Maruti Ba/aram Haibatti (1998) 6 
SCC 507 : (1996) 2 Suppl. SCR 863 - distinguished. 
2. The present case indicates a blatant abuse of the process 
of the Court. The petitioners uot only took the benefit of an 
order of the High Court granting them one year's time to vacate 
the premises bnt obtained a further extension of a period of four 
months to vacate. The petitioners then filed a Review Petition 
before the High Court and moved another application, this time 
seeking an extension of five years to vacate the premises. The 
time of the High Court and of this Court as well had to be devoted 
to a thoroughly frivolous proceeding. [Para 12) (104-D-F) 
3, This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a 
litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process 
will be seriously eroded if such attempts are no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.