MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus KAMLA DEVI AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1192 · Decided: 03-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
v. 
KAMLA DEVI AND ANR. 
APRIL 3, 1996 
(B.P . .TEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.j 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Anicle 136-Apex Cowt-Jwisdictioll 
of-Gross abuse of the process of law and misuse of the legal system-Prevel!-
tion of 
The first respondent was the owner of a four storey building in Delhi 
and also of a residential property in Ghaziabad. The appellant Municipal 
Corporation by an order dated January 28, 1991, assessed the said build-
ing in Delhi to property tax. That order was appealed against before the 
District judge, Delhi on March 8, 1991. However, while that appeal was 
D pending the respondent filed a suit before the Civil Judge. Ghaziabad on 
April 19, 1991 for a declaration that the said assessment order was illegal, 
invalid and void ab initio, and for a prohibitory injunction restraining the 
' 
appellant from attaching her property or taking any other action/proceed-
' 
ings/orders against her or her assets pursuant to the assessment order. It 
E was stated in para 2 of the plaint that the cause of action of the suit arose 
on April 18, 1991 when officials of the appellant visited her residence in 
Ghaziabad and threatened to attach her assets and persisted with their 
illegal acts. The factum of appeal was not disclosed. 
The suit was proceeded with ex parte and the Civil Judge declared 
F 
the assessrnent order illt!gal, bad ~nd contrary to law. He also restrained 
.,... 
G 
H 
the defendant-appellant and its representatives agents from auctioning 
plaintill's property in Ghaziabad pursuant to the assessment order. 
It was submitted for the appellant that the respondent had 
deliberately concealed the fact of tiling of appeal, that no proceedings for 
recovery were ever taken against her property in Ghaziabad, that the 
allegation in para 2 of the plaint was only a pretence and a total fabrication 
put forward to create jurisdiction in Ghaziabad court, that it had not 
received suit notice from Ghaziabad court, and that this was, thus, a clear 
case of over-reaching the process of law and amounts to a sharp practice. 
1192 
> 
M.C.D. v. K DEVI 
1193 
For the respondents it was submitted that suit summons were served A 
on the Corporation and the assessing officer, and that it was their duty to 
contest it. Not having done that, and having suffered a decree and allowing 
the limitation for filing appeal to lapse, it was not open to the appellant to 
approach the Conrt directly under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. It is a clear case of gross abuse of process of court and of 
law. Such practices ought to be put down with a stern hand so that others 
similarly minded may desist from indulging in those acts. [1197-E; 1199-E] 
B 
2. The averment made by respondent in para 2 of the plaint to the C 
effect that the offices of the appellant Corporation went to Ghaziabad to 
attach her moveables or of her grand-children to realise the tax under the 
order dated January 28, 1991 is a total falsehood and was a mere pretence 
to create jurisdiction in Ghaziabad court. Not a single document or any 
other scrap of paper has been filed before that court in support of the said D 
allegation. There is no mention, either, that any demand notice or bill was 
sent to the respondent at her Ghaziabad address. [1197; E-F, 1199-C] 
3. Furthermore, the frame of the suit and the language and terms in 
which the declaration and prohibitory injunction were asked for suggest a 
clear attempt to over-reach the process of court. The object clearly was to E 
obtain a declaration from a court outside Delhi that the said assessment 
order was illegal and invalid. [1197-F-G] 
4. The fact that the respondent-plaintiff chose to conceal the fact of 
her filing the appeal against the assessment order was also indicative of the. 
malajides on her part. [1197-G] 
F 
5. In view of their reprehensible conduct, the respondents (LRs) are 
directed to pay exemplary costs in the sum of rupees fifty thousand. 
[1199-D] 
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu [1994] 4 SCC G 
711, held applicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5339 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.91 of the Civil Judge, H 
1194 
SUPREME COURT RJ?PORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A Ghaziabad, U.P. in Suit No. 451 of 1990. 
B 
Ms. Madhu Tewa ti a and Ranbir Yad°hv, for the Appellant. 
A.B. Rohtagi, J.D. Jain, Balbir Singh Gupta and M.R. Vij for t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.