{"id":140207,"date":"2011-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-11-20T03:08:33","modified_gmt":"2015-11-19T21:38:33","slug":"ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: ……………………..J.<\/div>\n
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
                                                                     REPORTABLE\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n          CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4912-4913      OF 2011\n\n         (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3157-3158 of 2011)\n\n\n\n\n\nRamrameshwari Devi and Ors.                         ...Appellants\n\n\n\n      Versus\n\n\n\nNirmala Devi and Ors.                                     ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                             JUDGEMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dalveer Bhandari, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   judgment   and <\/p>\n
order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition <\/p>\n
(Main)   No.   1084   of   2010   and   the   order   dated   25.10.2010 <\/p>\n
passed   in   Review   Petition   No.   429   of   2010   in   Civil <\/p>\n
Miscellaneous   Petition   (Main)   No.   1084   of   2010   by   the   High <\/p>\n
Court of Delhi at New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
3.    The   apparent   discernible   question   which   requires <\/p>\n
adjudication   in   this   case   seems   to   be   a   trivial,   insignificant <\/p>\n
and small one regarding imposition of costs, but in fact, these <\/p>\n
appeals have raised several important questions of law of great <\/p>\n
importance   which   we   propose   to   deal   in   this   judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Looking to the importance of the matter we requested Dr. Arun <\/p>\n
Mohan, a distinguished senior advocate to assist this court as <\/p>\n
an Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n
4.    This   is   a   classic   example   which   abundantly   depicts   the <\/p>\n
picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how <\/p>\n
unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity <\/p>\n
harass   the   respondents   and   their   children   by   abusing   the <\/p>\n
judicial system.\n<\/p>\n
5.    The   basic   facts   which   are   necessary   to   dispose   of   these <\/p>\n
appeals are recapitulated as under:-\n<\/p>\n
6.    In   the   year   1952,   almost   about   half   a   century   ago,   the <\/p>\n
government     allotted a residential house bearing nos. 61-62, <\/p>\n
                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
I-Block, Lajpat Nagar-I, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad.\n<\/p>\n
The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964.\n<\/p>\n
7.    On   humane   considerations   of   shelter,   Ram   Parshad <\/p>\n
allowed   his   three   younger   brothers   –   Madan   Lal,   Krishan <\/p>\n
Gopal and Manohar Lal to reside with him in the house.                   On <\/p>\n
16.11.1977,   these   three   younger   brothers   filed   a   Civil   Suit <\/p>\n
No.993  of  1977  in  the   High  Court   of  Delhi  claiming  that  this <\/p>\n
Lajpat   Nagar   property   belonged   to   a   joint   Hindu   Family   and <\/p>\n
sought partition of the property on that basis.\n<\/p>\n
8.    The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 18.01.1982 <\/p>\n
by   the   learned  Single   Judge   of  the   High  Court   of   Delhi.     The <\/p>\n
appellants   (younger   brothers)   of   Ram   Parshad,   aggrieved   by <\/p>\n
the   said   judgment   preferred   a   Regular   First   Appeal   (Original <\/p>\n
Side) 4 of 1982 which was admitted to hearing on 09.03.1982.\n<\/p>\n
During   the   pendency   of   the   appeal,   Ram   Parshad   on <\/p>\n
15.01.1992 filed a suit against his three younger brothers for <\/p>\n
mandatory   injunction   to   remove   them   and   for   recovery   of <\/p>\n
mesne profits.  In 1984 Ram Parshad sold western half (No.61) <\/p>\n
to an outsider.  That matter is no longer in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
9.          The first appeal filed by the other three younger brothers <\/p>\n
of   Ram   Parshad   against   Ram   Parshad   was   dismissed   on <\/p>\n
09.11.2000.     Against   the   concurrent   findings   of   both   of   the <\/p>\n
judgments,   the   appellants   filed   a   Special   Leave   Petition <\/p>\n
No.3740   of   2001   in   this   court   which   was   also   dismissed   on <\/p>\n
16.03.2001.\n<\/p>\n
10.         In the suit filed by Ram Parshad (one of the respondents) <\/p>\n
(now   deceased)   against   the   appellants   in   these   appeals   the <\/p>\n
following issues were framed:\n<\/p>\n
      1.      Whether   the   suit   is   liable   to   be   stayed   under   Section <\/p>\n
              10   CPC   as   alleged   in   para   no.1   of   Preliminary <\/p>\n
              Objection?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      2.      Whether defendants are licencees in the suit premises <\/p>\n
              and   if   so   whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   recover <\/p>\n
              possession of the same from them?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      3.      Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      4.      Whether suit has been properly valued for the purpose <\/p>\n
              of court fees and jurisdiction?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                                                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
   5.       Whether   the   suit   property   is   joint   family   property   of <\/p>\n
            parties?\n<\/p>\n
   6.       Whether   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   mesne   profits   for <\/p>\n
            use   and   occupation   of   the   suit   property   by   the <\/p>\n
            defendants   and   if   so   at   what   rate   and   for   which <\/p>\n
            period?\n<\/p>\n
   7.       Whether   defendants  have   become   the   owner   of  three-\n<\/p>\n
            fourth   share   of   the   suit   property   by   adverse <\/p>\n
            possession?\n<\/p>\n
   8.       Relief.\n<\/p>\n
and fixed the matter for evidence on 22.11.2004.\n<\/p>\n
11.      The   defendants   in   the   suit   contended  that  inasmuch   as <\/p>\n
Regular   First   Appeal   (Original   Side)   4   of   1982   was   still <\/p>\n
pending,   therefore,   Ram   Parshad’s   suit   be   stayed   under <\/p>\n
section   10   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure.     Accepting   the <\/p>\n
contention,   on   20.07.1992,   the   1992   suit   was   ordered   to   be <\/p>\n
stayed.\n<\/p>\n
12.      The   Regular   First   Appeal   was   dismissed   on   9.11.2000 <\/p>\n
and the Special leave petition against the said appeal was also <\/p>\n
                                                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissed  on  16.3.2001.   Consequently,   the  suit  filed by   Ram <\/p>\n
Parshad   for   mandatory  injunction   and  for   mesne  profit   stood <\/p>\n
revived on 05.12.2001.\n<\/p>\n
13.    In   the   first   round   of   litigation   from   16.11.1977   to <\/p>\n
16.3.2001 it took about twenty four years and thereafter it had <\/p>\n
taken   10   years   from   16.3.2001.     In   the   1992   suit,   the <\/p>\n
defendants   (appellants   herein)   sought   amendment   of   the <\/p>\n
written statement which was refused on 28.07.2004.   Against <\/p>\n
this order, a Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 1153 of 2004 was filed <\/p>\n
in the High Court which was disposed of on 02.09.2004 with <\/p>\n
liberty to move an application before the trial court for framing <\/p>\n
an additional issue.   The additional issue regarding the claim <\/p>\n
of   adverse   possession   by   the   three   younger   brothers   was <\/p>\n
framed on 6.10.2004.   The issue was whether the defendants <\/p>\n
have   become   the   owner   of   three-fourth   share   of   the   suit <\/p>\n
property by adverse possession and the case was fixed up for <\/p>\n
recording   of   the   evidence.     According   to   the   learned   Amicus <\/p>\n
Curiae, the court before framing Issue Number 7 and retaining <\/p>\n
the   other   issues,   ought   to   have   recorded   the   statement   of <\/p>\n
defendants   under   Order   10   Rule   2   of   the   Code   of   the   Civil <\/p>\n
                                                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
Procedure   (for   short,   CPC)   and   then   re-cast   the   issues   as <\/p>\n
would have been appropriate on the pleadings of the parties as <\/p>\n
they would survive after the decision in the previous litigation.\n<\/p>\n
14.    According   to   the   learned   Amicus   Curiae,   the   practice   of <\/p>\n
mechanically   framing   the   issues   needs   to   be   discouraged.\n<\/p>\n
Framing of issues is an important exercise.   Utmost care and <\/p>\n
attention   is   required   to   be   bestowed   by   the   judicial <\/p>\n
officers\/judges   at   the   time   of   framing   of   issues.   According   to <\/p>\n
Dr.   Arun   Mohan,   twenty   minutes   spent   at   that   time   would <\/p>\n
have saved several years in court proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
15.    In the suit, on 6.11.2004 the application seeking transfer <\/p>\n
of  the  suit  from  that  court  was  filed  which   was  dismissed  by <\/p>\n
the learned District Judge on 22.3.2005.  The trial commenced <\/p>\n
on   22.11.2004,   adjournment   was   sought   and   was   granted <\/p>\n
against   costs.     The   plaintiffs’   evidence   was   concluded   on <\/p>\n
10.2.2005.\n<\/p>\n
16.    On   28.5.2005   the   defendants   failed   to   produce   the <\/p>\n
evidence   and   their   evidence   was   closed.     Against   that   order, <\/p>\n
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 1490 of 2005 was filed in the Delhi <\/p>\n
High   Court.     Stay   was   granted   on   15.7.2005   and   the <\/p>\n
                                                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
application was dismissed on 17.12.2007 with liberty to move <\/p>\n
an application for taking on record further documents.\n<\/p>\n
17.    On   12.2.2008,   an   application   under   Order   18   Rule   17A <\/p>\n
of the CPC was moved.  On `No Objection’ from the plaintiff, it <\/p>\n
was   allowed   on   31.7.2008   and   the   documents   and   affidavits <\/p>\n
were taken  on record.     On 23.10.2009, the matter  was fixed <\/p>\n
for evidence.   The appellants filed an application under Order <\/p>\n
7 Rule 11 (b) of the CPC for rejection of the 1992 plaint on the <\/p>\n
ground   of   not   paying   ad   valorem   court   fees   on   the   market <\/p>\n
value   of   property   and   for   under-valuation   of   relief.     This <\/p>\n
application   was   dismissed   by   the   Civil   Judge   on   09.07.2010 <\/p>\n
by the following order :-\n<\/p>\n
                    “M-61\/2006<\/p>\n
                    09.07.2010<\/p>\n
                    Present : Ld. Counsel for plaintiff<\/p>\n
                                 Ld. Counsel for defendant<\/p>\n
                Application   under   section   151   CPC   is   filed <\/p>\n
          by   defendant   for   treating   Issue   No.4   as <\/p>\n
          preliminary   issue.     It   pertains   to   court   fees   and <\/p>\n
          jurisdiction.     It  is   pertinent   to   mention   that   suit <\/p>\n
          is   at   the   stage   of   final   arguments   and   both   the <\/p>\n
          parties have led the entire evidence.  Ld. Counsel <\/p>\n
          for   defendant   submits   that   this   application   has <\/p>\n
          been filed by the defendant in view of the liberty <\/p>\n
          granted   to   the   defendant   by   the   Hon’ble   High <\/p>\n
          Court vide order dated 26.4.2010 dismissing the <\/p>\n
                                                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
Civil   Revision   Petition   application   no.76\/10   as <\/p>\n
withdrawn   against   the   order   dated   12.10.2006 <\/p>\n
passed   by   this   court.     It   is   pointed   out   to   the <\/p>\n
counsel for defendant that case is at the stage of <\/p>\n
final   arguments   and   law   enjoins   upon   the   court <\/p>\n
to   return   finding   on   all   the   issues.     Counsel   for <\/p>\n
the   defendant   filing   this   application   seeks <\/p>\n
disposal   of   the   same.     Perused   the   application <\/p>\n
and   gone   through   record.     Order   20   Rule   5 <\/p>\n
clearly states that court has to return finding on <\/p>\n
each   issue.     Even   Order   14   Rule   2   CPC   states <\/p>\n
that the court has to pronounce the judgment on <\/p>\n
all   issues   notwithstanding   that   the   case   may   be <\/p>\n
disposed   off   on   preliminary   issue.     Sub   Rule   2 <\/p>\n
refers   to   the   discretion   given   to   the   court   where <\/p>\n
the   court   may   try   issue   relating   to   the <\/p>\n
jurisdiction   of   the   court   or   the   bar   to   the   suit <\/p>\n
created by any law for the time being in force as <\/p>\n
preliminary issue.  It further relates to disposal of <\/p>\n
the   suit   treating   these   points   as   preliminary <\/p>\n
issues and also relates to deferring the settlement <\/p>\n
of other issues. But there is no such case.  Entire <\/p>\n
evidence has been led, the matter is at the stage <\/p>\n
of final arguments and the point raised does not <\/p>\n
relate   to   the   point   pertaining   to   Sub   Rule   2. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Neither   it   relates   to   bar   created   by   any   law   nor <\/p>\n
the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.\n<\/p>\n
It is averments made in the plaint.  Contention of <\/p>\n
the applicant for treating the issue as preliminary <\/p>\n
issue   is   against   the   spirit   of   law   as   referred   in <\/p>\n
Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.   I do <\/p>\n
not   see   any   merit   in   this   application   and   the <\/p>\n
same is dismissed with the costs of Rs.2000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
          To come up for payment of cost and final <\/p>\n
   arguments.\n<\/p>\n
          Put up on 09.08.2010<\/p>\n
                                           (Vipin Kumar Rai)<\/p>\n
                                                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                        ACJ\/ARC(W)”\n<\/p>\n
18.    Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2009, the defendants <\/p>\n
(appellants herein) preferred a Civil Revision Petition No.76 of <\/p>\n
2010   in   the   High   Court   of   Delhi.   At   the   preliminary   hearing, <\/p>\n
the   petition   was   allowed   to   be   withdrawn,   leaving   the   trial <\/p>\n
court   at   liberty   to   consider   the   request   of   the   appellants   to <\/p>\n
treat   Issue   Number   4   regarding   court   fee   as   a   preliminary <\/p>\n
issue.\n<\/p>\n
19.    On 09.07.2010, the defendants filed an application before <\/p>\n
the   Civil   Judge   for   treating   Issue  Number   4  as   a  preliminary <\/p>\n
issue.     This   application   was   rejected   by   the   Civil   Court   on <\/p>\n
9.7.2010   with   costs.     The   matter   is   at   the   stage   of   final <\/p>\n
arguments   before   the   trial   court.     At   this   stage,   against   the <\/p>\n
order   of   the   Civil   Judge,   on   7.8.2010,   the   appellants   filed   a <\/p>\n
petition   being   Civil   Miscellaneous   (Main)   No.1084   of   2010 <\/p>\n
under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court which <\/p>\n
came up for preliminary hearing on 26.8.2010.   On 1.9.2010, <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   dismissed   the   Civil   Miscellaneous   (Main) <\/p>\n
No.1084   of   2010   by   a   detailed   judgment   rendered   at   the <\/p>\n
                                                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
preliminary   hearing   and   imposed   cost   of   Rs.75000\/-   to   be <\/p>\n
deposited with the Registrar General.  Review Petition No. 429 <\/p>\n
of 2010 was filed which was dismissed on 25.10.2010.\n<\/p>\n
20.    These appeals have been filed against the order imposing <\/p>\n
costs and dismissing the review petition.\n<\/p>\n
21.    The   learned   Single   Judge   observed   that   the   present <\/p>\n
appellants   belong   to   that   category   of   litigants   whose   only <\/p>\n
motive is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not <\/p>\n
to   let   the   trial   conclude.     Applications   after   applications   are <\/p>\n
being   filed   by   the   appellants   at   every   stage,   even   though <\/p>\n
orders   of   the   trial   court   are   based   on   sound   reasoning.\n<\/p>\n
Moreover,  the  appellants  have  tried  to  mislead  the  court  also <\/p>\n
by filing wrong synopsis and incorrect dates of events.\n<\/p>\n
22.    The   High   Court   further   observed   that   the   purpose   of <\/p>\n
filing   of  brief  synopsis   with  list   of  dates  and  events  is  to   give <\/p>\n
brief and correct summary of the case and not to mislead the <\/p>\n
court.     Those   litigants   or   their   advocates   who   mislead   the <\/p>\n
                                                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
courts   by   filing   wrong   and   incorrect   particulars   (the   list   of <\/p>\n
dates and events) must be dealt with heavy hands.\n<\/p>\n
23.    In   the   list   of   dates   and   events,   it   is   stated   that   the <\/p>\n
respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery <\/p>\n
of Rs.36,000\/- on 22nd September, 2003.  In fact, as per typed <\/p>\n
copy   of  the   plaint   placed  on  record,   the   suit  was   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
predecessor-in-interest   of   the   respondents   in   1992.     Written <\/p>\n
statement   was   filed   by   the   predecessor-in-interest   of   the <\/p>\n
appellants in 1992.   Thus, the appellants tried to mislead the <\/p>\n
court   by   mentioning   wrong   date   of   22nd  September,   2003   as <\/p>\n
the date of filing.\n<\/p>\n
24.    The High Court has also dealt with number of judgments <\/p>\n
dealing with the power of the High Court under Article 227 of <\/p>\n
the   Constitution.     According   to   the   High   Court,   the   suit   was <\/p>\n
filed in the trial court in 1992. The written statement was filed <\/p>\n
as far back on 15th April, 1992.   On pleadings, Issue Number <\/p>\n
4   was   framed   with   regard   to   court   fee   and   jurisdiction.     The <\/p>\n
appellants never pressed that Issue Number 4 be treated as a <\/p>\n
preliminary   issue.     Both   the   parties   led   their   respective <\/p>\n
                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence.     When   the   suit   was   fixed   before   the   trial   court   for <\/p>\n
final   arguments,   application   in   question   was   filed.     The <\/p>\n
appellants   argued   that   Issue   Number   4   would   also   be <\/p>\n
determined along with other issues.\n<\/p>\n
25.    In   the   impugned   judgment,   it   is   also   observed  that  it   is <\/p>\n
revealed from the record that the appellants have been moving <\/p>\n
one application after the other, though all were dismissed with <\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
26.    It   may   be   pertinent   to   mention   that   the   appellants   also <\/p>\n
moved   transfer   application   apprehending   adverse   order   from <\/p>\n
the   trial   judge,   which   was   also   dismissed   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
District   Judge.     This   conduct   of   the   appellants   demonstrates <\/p>\n
that they are determined not to allow the trial court to proceed <\/p>\n
with   the   suit.     They   are   creating   all   kinds   of   hurdles   and <\/p>\n
obstacles at every stage of the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
27.    The learned Single Judge observed that even according to <\/p>\n
Order 14 Rule 2 CPC the court has to pronounce the judgment <\/p>\n
on all issues notwithstanding that the case may be disposed of <\/p>\n
                                                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
on preliminary issue.   Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC is reads as <\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
              “ORDER XIV:   SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND <\/p>\n
              DETERMINATION   OF   SUIT   ON   ISSUES   OF <\/p>\n
              LAW OR ON ISSUES AGREED UPON.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   … … …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   … … …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues: <\/p>\n
              (1)   Notwithstanding   that   a   case   may   be <\/p>\n
              disposed   of   on   a   preliminary   issue,   the   Court <\/p>\n
              shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), <\/p>\n
              pronounce judgment on all issues.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                   … … …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   … … …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
28.    Sub   Rule   2   refers   to   the   discretion   given   to   the   court <\/p>\n
where the court may try issue relating to the jurisdiction of the <\/p>\n
court   or   the   bar   to   the   suit   created   by   any   law   for   the   time <\/p>\n
being   in   force   as   preliminary   issue.     It   further   relates   to <\/p>\n
disposal of the suit treating these points as preliminary issues <\/p>\n
and also relates to deferring the settlement of other issues, but <\/p>\n
there is no  such case.   The entire  evidence has been led, the <\/p>\n
matter is at the stage of final arguments and the point raised <\/p>\n
does not relate to the point pertaining to Sub Rule 2.   Neither <\/p>\n
it relates to bar created by any law nor the jurisdiction of the <\/p>\n
court to entertain the suit. It is just an averment made in the <\/p>\n
                                                                                   1<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint.  Contention of the appellants for treating the said issue <\/p>\n
as preliminary issue is against the spirit of law as referred in <\/p>\n
Order   20   Rule   5   and   Order   14   Rule   5   of   the   CPC.     These <\/p>\n
observations of the courts below are correct and in pursuance <\/p>\n
of the provisions of the Act.  The High Court properly analysed <\/p>\n
the order of the trial court and observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “Looking   from   any   angle,   no   illegality   or <\/p>\n
             infirmity   can   be   found   in   the   impugned <\/p>\n
             order.     The   only   object   of   petitioners   is <\/p>\n
             just   to   delay   the   trial,   which   is   pending <\/p>\n
             for   the   last   more   than   18   years.     To   a <\/p>\n
             large   extent,   petitioners   have   been <\/p>\n
             successful   in   delaying   the   judicial <\/p>\n
             proceedings   by   filing   false,   frivolous   and <\/p>\n
             bogus applications, one after the other. <\/p>\n
             It   is   well   settled   that   frivolous   litigation <\/p>\n
             clogs   the   wheels   of   justice   making   it <\/p>\n
             difficult   for   courts   to   provide   easy   and <\/p>\n
             speedy justice to the genuine litigations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    Dismissed<\/p>\n
                    List   for   compliance   on   7th  October, <\/p>\n
                    2010.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
29.    We   have   carefully   examined   the   impugned   judgment   of <\/p>\n
the   High  Court   and   also   order   dated   9.7.2010   passed  by   the <\/p>\n
learned Civil Judge, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            1<\/span><\/p>\n
30.    It   is   abundantly   clear   from   the   facts   and   circumstances <\/p>\n
of   this   case   that   the   appellants   have   seriously   created <\/p>\n
obstacles at every stage during the course of trial and virtually <\/p>\n
prevented   the   court   from   proceeding   with   the   suit.     This  is   a <\/p>\n
typical example of how an ordinary suit moves in our courts.\n<\/p>\n
Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants on one ground <\/p>\n
or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the <\/p>\n
matter.\n<\/p>\n
31.    The   learned   Amicus   Curiae   has   taken   great   pains   in <\/p>\n
giving details of how the case has proceeded in the trial court <\/p>\n
by reproducing the entire court orders of 1992 suit.   In order <\/p>\n
to   properly   comprehend   the   functioning   of   the   trial   courts, <\/p>\n
while   dealing   with   civil   cases,   we   deem   it   appropriate   to <\/p>\n
reproduce   the   order   sheets   of   1992   suit.     This   is   a   typical <\/p>\n
example of how a usual civil trial proceeds in our courts.   The <\/p>\n
credibility   of   entire   judiciary   is   at   stake   unless   effective <\/p>\n
remedial steps are taken without further loss of time.  Though <\/p>\n
original litigation and the appeal which commenced from 1977 <\/p>\n
but in order to avoid expanding the scope of these appeals, we <\/p>\n
                                                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
are   dealing  only   with   the  second   litigation   which   commenced <\/p>\n
in 1992.   The order sheets of the suit of 1992 are reproduced <\/p>\n
as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                     Proceedings of Suit – 1992<\/p>\n
      17.01.1992        Summons to Defendants on plaintiff <\/p>\n
                        and RC<\/p>\n
      28.02.1992        Fresh summons to Defendants 1 & <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        2.  Defendant No. 3 refused service. <\/p>\n
                        Proceeded ex-parte<\/p>\n
      30.03.1992        Time sought to file Written <\/p>\n
                        Statement for all the Defendants. <\/p>\n
                        Allowed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n\n      20.04.1992        Written   Statement   filed.     Fixed   on \n\n                        30.04.1992           for         replication, \n\n                        admission\/denial   and   framing   of \n\n                        issues.\n\n\n\n      01.05.1992        Plaintiff   sought   time   to   file \n\n                        replication.\n\n\n\n      11.05.1992        Replication   filed.     Adjourned   for \n\n                        admission\/ denial on joint request.\n\n\n\n      26.05.1992        No   document   for   admission\/denial. \n\n                        Issues framed.   Fixed for arguments \n\n                        on 17.07.1992.\n\n\n\n\n      17.07.1992        Arguments   heard   on   preliminary \n\n                        issue.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          1<\/span>\n\n\n20.07.1992    Suit stayed.  Plaintiff granted liberty \n\n<\/pre>\n
              to   make  application   for   revival  after <\/p>\n
              disposal of RFA (OS) 4\/82.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
01.06.2001    File   sent   to   District   Judge   for <\/p>\n
              transferring   the   case   to   proper <\/p>\n
              court.\n<\/p>\n
04.06.2001    District Judge marked to case to the <\/p>\n
              court   of   Shri   Naipal   Singh, <\/p>\n
              Additional District Judge.\n<\/p>\n
02.07.2001    Presiding   Officer   is   on   vacation <\/p>\n
              leave.  Fixed for 03.07.2001.\n<\/p>\n
03.07.2001    Miscellaneous   application   notice <\/p>\n
              issued to the respondent.  Main Suit <\/p>\n
              47\/92 summoned.\n<\/p>\n
23.08.2001    Suit   file   be   summoned.     Notice   of <\/p>\n
              application   to   Defendant   on   PF   & <\/p>\n
              RC.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n16.10.2001    Copy   of   application   given   to   all   the \n\n              Defendants.     Adjourned   for   reply   to \n\n<\/pre>\n
              application and further proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
05.12.2001    Suit has to proceed for the decision <\/p>\n
              on merits.\n<\/p>\n
28.02.2002    Application   under   Order   6   Rule   17 <\/p>\n
              moved by Defendant for amendment <\/p>\n
              of Written Statement.  Adjourned for <\/p>\n
              reply   and   arguments   on   the <\/p>\n
              application.\n<\/p>\n
16.04.2002    As   the   value   of   the   suit   is   below   3 <\/p>\n
              lakhs,   the   suit   transferred   to   the <\/p>\n
              court of Civil Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
23.04.2002    Reply to application filed. Summons <\/p>\n
              to Defendants other than Defendant <\/p>\n
              No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
21.08.2002    Counsel for the parties not present.\n<\/p>\n
28.11.2002    Presiding Officer on leave.\n<\/p>\n
07.12.2002    At   joint   request,   adjourned.     Last <\/p>\n
              opportunity.\n<\/p>\n
22.09.2003    None   present.            Adjourned   for <\/p>\n
              arguments on Order 6 Rule 17.  File <\/p>\n
              transferred   to   the   court   of   Shri <\/p>\n
              Prashant Kumar, Civil Judge.\n<\/p>\n
12.11.2003    Son   of   the   Plaintiff   stated   that   the <\/p>\n
              Plaintiff has expired.  Adjourned.\n<\/p>\n
06.12.2003    Presiding Officer not available.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n16.01.2004    Copy   of  application   under   Order   22 \n\n              Rule   3   supplied.     As   requested, \n\n              adjourned.\n\n\n\n16.02.2004    Reply   not   filed.     Counsel   for   the \n\n              Defendant seeks time to file reply.\n\n\n\n01.03.2004    Reply   filed.          Counsel   for   the \n\n              Defendant           objected         that         the \n\n              addresses   of   Legal   Representatives \n\n              are not correct.\n\n\n\n24.03.2004    Application   Order   22   Rule   3   is \n\n              allowed.     Right   to   sue   survives. \n\n              Order   6   Rule   17   pending   for \n\n              disposal.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        1<\/span>\n\n\n27.04.2004       Arguments heard.\n\n\n\n22.05.2004       Plaintiff   wants   to   file   written \n\n                 submissions            with              regard            to \n\n                 clarification.  Allowed.\n\n\n\n03.07.2004       None   for   Defendants.                          Written \n\n                 submissions filed by Plaintiff.\n\n\n\n28.7.2004        Present   none.     Order   6   Rule   17 \n\n                 dismissed.\n\n02.09.2004       None   for   Defendants.     Fixed   for   PE \n\nto 06.10.2004\n\n\n\n28.09.2004       Defendant   moved   application   Order \n\n                 14 Rule 5.  Notice issued.\n\n\n\n06.10.2004       Issues   reframed.     Defendant   sought \n\n                 time to cross-examine PW.\n\n\n\n22.11.2004       PW   present.     Defendant   prayed   for \n\n                 adjournment.             Defendant   moved \n\n<\/pre>\n
                 application   for   transfer   of   the   case.\n<\/p>\n
                 Last         opportunity                 for         cross-\n\n                 examination.\n\n\n\n21.12.2004       PW   present.     Previous   cost   not \n\n                 pressed   for.     PW   sought   time   for \n\n                 obtaining copies of documents.\n\n\n\n10.02.2005       PW cross-examined.  PE closed.\n\n\n\n15.03.2005       No DW present\n\n\n\n19.04.2005       Affidavit   of   DW   filed.     However   DW \n\n                 stated   that   he   is   not   feeling   well. \n\n                 Adjourned.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   2<\/span>\n\n\n28.05.2004    Defendant   stated   that   he   does   not \n\n              want   to   lead   evidence.     DE   closed. \n\n              Fixed for final arguments.\n\n\n\n15.07.2005    Stay by the High Court in CM (Main) \n\n              1490\/2005.\n\n\n\n18.07.2005    Counsel   for   the   Defendant   states \n\n              that   the   High   Court   has   stayed   the \n\n              matter.     Directed   to   file   the   copy   of \n\n              the order.\n\n\n\n25.08.2005    No copy of the order is filed.\n\n\n\n29.10.2005    Matter under stay by High Court.\n\n\n\n30.01.2006    Fresh   suit   received   by   transfer. \n\n              Adjourned for proper orders.\n\n\n\n02.05.2006    Notice to Defendants.\n\n\n\n31.05.2006    Counsel   for   the   Defendants   served \n\n              but   none   appeared.     Adjourned   for \n\n              final arguments.\n\n\n\n21.08.2006    File not traceable.  Adjourned.\n\n\n\n09.12.2006    Present:     Counsel   for   the   plaintiff. \n\n              Adjourned for final arguments.\n\n\n\n19.02.2007    Counsel            for         the         plaintiff. \n\n              Proceedings   stayed   by   the   High \n\n              Court.\n\n\n\n21.08.2007    Counsel for the Plaintiff.                   Matter \n\n              under stay by the High Court.\n\n\n\n17.12.2007    CM (Main) 1490\/2005 dismissed by \n\n              the High Court.  Stay vacated.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        2<\/span>\n\n\n10.1.2008Counsel   for   the   Plaintiff.     None   for   the \n\n           Defendant.  Adjourned.\n\n\n\n12.02.2008        Defendant   filed   application   O18 \n\n                  R17A.     Copy   supplied.     Adjourned \n\n                  for reply and ar guments.\n\n\n\n30.04.2008        Reply   filed   by   the   Plaintiff. \n\n                  Application   allowed   to   cost   of \n\n                  Rs.7,000\/-, out of which Rs.1,000\/- \n\n                  to   be   deposited   in   Legal   Aid. \n\n                  Adjourned for DE.\n\n\n\n31.07.2008        Defendant   sought   adjournment   on \n\n                  the   ground   that   witness   is   not \n\n                  feeling well.\n\n\n\n29.9.2008         Plaintiff   moved   application   Order   6 \n\n                  Rule 17.  Copy supplied. \n\n\n\n23.12.2008        Reply filed.  Come up for arguments \n\n                  on the application.\n\n\n\n21.5.2009         Part arguments heard.\n\n\n\n22.07.2009        Plaintiff   does   not   press   for   the \n\n                  application.     Dismissed.     To   come \n\n                  up for DE.\n\n\n\n05.10.2009        Defendants   witness   not   present. \n\n                  Application   for   exemption   allowed. \n\n                  Affidavit already filed.\n\n\n\n23.10.2009        Application   under   Order   7   Rule   1 \n\n                  CPC   filed.     Dismissed.     Affidavit   of \n\n                  Kishan   Gopal     tendered   as   DW1, \n\n                  and   he   is   cross-examined   and \n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     2<\/span>\n\n\n                        discharged.     No   other   witness.     DE \n\n                        closed.\n\n\n\n       11.01.2010       Presiding Officer on leave.\n\n\n\n       23.03.2010       Defendant   seeks   adjournment   on \n\n                        the   ground   that   main   counsel   not \n\n                        available.\n\n\n\n       3.5.2010         Adjournment   sought   on   behalf   of \n\n                        the parties.\n\n\n\n       26.5.2010        File not traceable.\n\n\n\n       9.7.2010         Application   under   Section   151   CPC \n\n                        for   treating   No.   4   as   preliminary \n\n                        issue.        Dismissed   with   cost   of \n\n                        Rs.2,000\/-\n\n\n\n       9.8.2010         Application for adjournment filed.\n\n\n\n       27.9.2010        Presiding Officer on leave.\n\n\n\n       23.10.2010       For final arguments.\n\n\n\n       18.12.2010       For final arguments.\n\n\n\n       22.1.2011        For final arguments.\n\n\n\n       5.2.2011         For final arguments.\n\n\n\n       26.2.2011        Sought   adjournment   on   the   ground \n\n                        that   the   matter   regarding   cost   is \n\n                        pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court. \n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
32.    Dr.  Arun  Mohan,  learned   amicus  curiae,   has written   an <\/p>\n
extremely   useful,   informative   and   unusual   book  “Justice,  <\/p>\n
                                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
Courts   and   Delays”.    This   book   also   deals   with   the   main <\/p>\n
causes   of   delay   in   the   administration   of   justice.   He   has   also <\/p>\n
suggested some effective remedial measures.  We would briefly <\/p>\n
deal   with   the   aspect   of   delay   in   disposal   of   civil   cases   and <\/p>\n
some   remedial   measures   and   suggestions   to   improve   the <\/p>\n
situation.   According   to   our   considered   view,   if   these <\/p>\n
suggestions   are   implemented   in   proper   perspective,   then   the <\/p>\n
present   justice   delivery   system   of   civil   litigation   would <\/p>\n
certainly improve to a great extent.\n<\/p>\n
33.    According   to   the   learned   author,   90%   of   our   court   time <\/p>\n
and   resources   are   consumed   in   attending   to   uncalled   for <\/p>\n
litigation,   which   is   created   only   because   our   current <\/p>\n
procedures and practices hold out an incentive for the wrong-\n<\/p>\n
doer.     Those   involved   receive   less   than   full   justice   and   there <\/p>\n
are many more in the country, in fact, a greater number than <\/p>\n
those   involved   who   suffer   injustice   because   they   have   little <\/p>\n
access to justice, in fact, lack of awareness and confidence in <\/p>\n
the justice system.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
34.    According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled for <\/p>\n
litigation   gets   encouragement   because   our   courts   do   not <\/p>\n
impose   realistic   costs.     The   parties  raise   unwarranted   claims <\/p>\n
and   defences   and   also   adopt   obstructionist   and   delaying <\/p>\n
tactics   because   the   courts   do   not   impose   actual   or   realistic <\/p>\n
costs.   Ordinarily,   the   successful   party   usually   remains <\/p>\n
uncompensated   in   our   courts   and   that   operates   as   the   main <\/p>\n
motivating   factor   for   unscrupulous   litigants.     Unless   the <\/p>\n
courts,   by   appropriate   orders   or   directions   remove   the   cause <\/p>\n
for   motivation   or   the   incentives,   uncalled   for   litigation   will <\/p>\n
continue   to   accrue,   and   there   will   be   expansion   and <\/p>\n
obstruction of the litigation.   Court time and resources will be <\/p>\n
consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied.\n<\/p>\n
35.    According   to   the   learned   author   lesser   the   court’s <\/p>\n
attention   towards   full   restitution   and   realistic   costs,   which <\/p>\n
translates as profit for the wrongdoer, the greater would be the <\/p>\n
generation   of   uncalled   for   litigation   and   exercise   of   skills   for <\/p>\n
achieving   delays   by   impurity   in   presentation   and   deployment <\/p>\n
of obstructive tactics.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
36.    According to him the cost (risk) – benefit ratio is directly <\/p>\n
dependent   on  what  costs  and   penalties  will   the   court   impose <\/p>\n
on him; and the benefit will come in as  the other `succumbing’ <\/p>\n
en route and or leaving a profit for him, or even if it is a fight <\/p>\n
to   the   end,   the   court   still   leaving   a   profit   with   him   as <\/p>\n
unrestituted gains or unassessed short levied costs.  Litigation <\/p>\n
perception   of   the   probability   of   the   other   party   getting   tired <\/p>\n
and   succumbing   to  the   delays   and  settling   with   him  and   the <\/p>\n
court  ultimately   awarding  what kind  of  restitution,  costs and <\/p>\n
fines against him – paltry or realistic.  This perception ought to <\/p>\n
be the real risk evaluation.\n<\/p>\n
37.    According to the learned Amicus Curiae if the appellants <\/p>\n
had   the   apprehension   of   imposition   of   realistic   costs   or <\/p>\n
restitution,   then   this   litigation   perhaps   would   not   have   been <\/p>\n
filed.   According to him, ideally, having lost up to the highest <\/p>\n
court   (16.03.2001),   the   appellants   (defendants   in   the   suit) <\/p>\n
ought   to   have   vacated   the   premises   and   moved   out   on   their <\/p>\n
own,   but   the   appellants   seem   to   have   acted   as   most   parties <\/p>\n
do-calculate the cost (risk)-benefit ratio between surrendering <\/p>\n
                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
on   their   own   and   continuing   to   contest   before   the   court.\n<\/p>\n
Procrastinating   litigation   is   common   place   because,   in <\/p>\n
practice,   the   courts   are   reluctant   to   order   restitution   and <\/p>\n
actual cost incurred by the other side.\n<\/p>\n
Profits for the wrongdoer <\/p>\n
38.    According   to the  learned   Amicus  Curiae,   every lease  on <\/p>\n
its   expiry,   or   a   license   on   its   revocation   cannot   be   converted <\/p>\n
itself into litigation.  Unfortunately, our courts are flooded with <\/p>\n
these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrong-\n<\/p>\n
doers in our system.  It is a matter of common knowledge that <\/p>\n
domestic   servants,   gardeners,   watchmen,   caretakers   or <\/p>\n
security men employed in a premises, whose status is that of a <\/p>\n
licensee   indiscriminately   file   suits   for   injunction   not   to   be <\/p>\n
dispossessed   by   making   all   kinds   of   averments   and   may   be <\/p>\n
even filing a forged document, and then demands a chunk of <\/p>\n
money for withdrawing the suit.   It is happening because it is <\/p>\n
the   general   impression   that   even   if   ultimately   unauthorized <\/p>\n
person   is   thrown   out   of   the   premises   the   court   would   not <\/p>\n
ordinarily   punish   the   unauthorized   person   by   awarding <\/p>\n
                                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
realistic and actual mesne profits, imposing costs or ordering <\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
39.    It   is   a   matter   of   common   knowledge   that   lakhs   of   flats <\/p>\n
and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities <\/p>\n
and   metropolitan   cities,   because   owners   are   not   certain   that <\/p>\n
even  after   expiry   of  lease  or  licence   period,   the   house,   flat   or <\/p>\n
the  apartment  would  be  vacated or  not.    It  takes   decades   for <\/p>\n
final   determination   of   the   controversy   and   wrongdoers   are <\/p>\n
never adequately punished.  Pragmatic approach of the courts <\/p>\n
would partly solve the housing problem of this country.\n<\/p>\n
40.    The   courts   have   to   be   extremely   careful   in   granting   ad-\n<\/p>\n
interim ex-parte injunction.  If injunction has been granted on <\/p>\n
the   basis   of   false   pleadings   or   forged   documents,   then   the <\/p>\n
concerned   court   must   impose   costs,   grant   realistic   or   actual <\/p>\n
mesne profits and\/or order prosecution.  This must be done to <\/p>\n
discourage   the   dishonest   and   unscrupulous   litigants   from <\/p>\n
abusing the judicial system.  In substance, we have to remove <\/p>\n
the incentive or profit for the wrongdoer.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
41.    While   granting   ad   interim   ex-parte   injunction   or   stay <\/p>\n
order the court must record undertaking  from the plaintiff or <\/p>\n
the   petitioner   that   he   will   have   to   pay   mesne   profits   at   the <\/p>\n
market   rate   and   costs   in   the   event   of   dismissal   of   interim <\/p>\n
application and the suit.\n<\/p>\n
42.    According to the learned Amicus Curiae the court should <\/p>\n
have   first   examined   the   pleadings   and   then   not   only   granted <\/p>\n
leave   to   amend   but   directed   amendment   of   the   pleadings   so <\/p>\n
that   the   parties   were   confined   to   those   pleas   which   still <\/p>\n
survived   the  High Court’s  decision.    Secondly,   it  should  have <\/p>\n
directed   discovery   and   production   of   documents   and   their <\/p>\n
admission\/denial.     Thirdly,   if   the   civil   judge   on   6.10.2004, <\/p>\n
which   was   three   and   a   half   years   after   the   dismissal   of   the <\/p>\n
Special   Leave   Petition   on   16.3.2001,   instead   of   framing   the <\/p>\n
issues that he did, had, after recording the statements of the <\/p>\n
parties   and   partially   hearing   the   matter   should   have   passed <\/p>\n
the following order:\n<\/p>\n
       “In   my   prima   facie   view,   your   pleadings   are   not <\/p>\n
       sufficient   to   raise   an   issue   for   adverse   possession, <\/p>\n
       secondly   how   can   you   contend   adverse   possession <\/p>\n
       of   three-fourth   share?   And   thirdly,   your   pleadings <\/p>\n
                                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
       and   contentions   before   the   High   Court   had   the <\/p>\n
       effect   of   completely   negating   any   claim   to   adverse <\/p>\n
       possession. …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
43.    Framing   of   issues   is   a   very   important   stage   in   the   civil <\/p>\n
litigation and it is the bounden duty of the court that due care, <\/p>\n
caution,   diligence   and   attention   must   be   bestowed   by   the <\/p>\n
learned Presiding Judge while framing of issues.\n<\/p>\n
44.    In  the instant  case  when  the entire  question  of title  has <\/p>\n
been   determined   by   the   High   Court   and   the   Special   Leave <\/p>\n
Petition   against   that   judgment   has   been   dismissed   by   this <\/p>\n
court, thereafter the trial court ought not to have framed such <\/p>\n
an   issue   on   a   point   which   has   been   finally   determined   upto <\/p>\n
this   Court.     In  any   case,   the   same   was  exclusively   barred   by <\/p>\n
the principles of res judicata.   That clearly demonstrates total <\/p>\n
non-application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
45.    We   have   carefully   examined   the   written   submissions   of <\/p>\n
the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
We are  clearly  of the  view that unless  we  ensure that wrong-\n<\/p>\n
doers   are   denied   profit   or   undue   benefit   from   the   frivolous <\/p>\n
                                                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled <\/p>\n
for   litigations.     In   order   to   curb   uncalled   for   and   frivolous <\/p>\n
litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive <\/p>\n
or motive for uncalled for litigation.   It is a matter of common <\/p>\n
experience   that   court’s   otherwise   scarce   and   valuable   time   is <\/p>\n
consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of <\/p>\n
uncalled for cases.\n<\/p>\n
46.    Usually   the   court   should   be   cautious   and   extremely <\/p>\n
careful   while   granting   ex-parte   ad   interim   injunctions.     The <\/p>\n
better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some <\/p>\n
cases   even   dasti   notice,   hear   both   the   parties   and   then   pass <\/p>\n
suitable   biparte   orders.     Experience   reveals   that   ex-parte <\/p>\n
interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and <\/p>\n
getting   them   vacated   or   modified   in   our   existing   judicial <\/p>\n
system is a nightmare.   Therefore, as a rule, the court should <\/p>\n
grant   interim    injunction   or  stay   order   only   after   hearing   the <\/p>\n
defendants   or   the   respondents   and   in   case   the   court   has   to <\/p>\n
grant  ex-parte    injunction   in   exceptional   cases   then   while <\/p>\n
granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit <\/p>\n
                                                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have <\/p>\n
to   pay   full   restitution,   actual   or   realistic   costs   and  mesne <\/p>\n
profits.\n<\/p>\n
47.    If   an   exparte   injunction   order   is   granted,   then   in   that <\/p>\n
case   an   endeavour   should   be   made   to   dispose   of   the <\/p>\n
application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible, <\/p>\n
preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court.\n<\/p>\n
48.    It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad <\/p>\n
interim   injunction   is   granted,   the   plaintiff   or   the   petitioner <\/p>\n
would   make   all   efforts   to   ensure   that   injunction   continues <\/p>\n
indefinitely.     The   other   appropriate   order   can   be   to   limit   the <\/p>\n
life   of   the  ex-parte   injunction   or   stay   order   for   a   week   or   so <\/p>\n
because   in   such   cases   the   usual   tendency   of   unnecessarily <\/p>\n
prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after <\/p>\n
obtaining  ex-parte  injunction   orders   or   stay   orders   may   not <\/p>\n
find   encouragement.   We   have   to   dispel   the   common <\/p>\n
impression   that   a   party   by   obtaining   an   injunction   based   on <\/p>\n
even   false   averments   and   forged   documents   will   tire   out   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up <\/p>\n
to   the   wrongdoer   his   legitimate   profit.     It   is   also   a   matter   of <\/p>\n
common   experience   that   to   achieve   clandestine   objects,   false <\/p>\n
pleas   are   often   taken   and   forged   documents   are   filed <\/p>\n
indiscriminately   in   our   courts   because   they   have   hardly   any <\/p>\n
apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or <\/p>\n
even pay heavy costs.  In Swaran Singh  v.  State of Punjab<\/a>  <\/p>\n
(2000) 5 SCC 668  this court was constrained to observe that <\/p>\n
perjury has become a way of life in our courts.\n<\/p>\n
49.    It   is   a   typical   example   how   a   litigation   proceeds   and <\/p>\n
continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer.\n<\/p>\n
50.    Learned   amicus   articulated   common   man’s   general <\/p>\n
impression about litigation in following words:\n<\/p>\n
       “Make   any   false   averment,   conceal   any   fact,   raise <\/p>\n
       any   plea,   produce   any   false   document,   deny   any <\/p>\n
       genuine   document,   it   will   successfully   stall   the <\/p>\n
       litigation,   and   in   any   case,   delay   the   matter <\/p>\n
       endlessly.     The   other   party   will   be   coerced   into   a <\/p>\n
       settlement   which   will   be   profitable   for   me   and   the <\/p>\n
       probability   of   the   court   ordering   prosecution   for <\/p>\n
       perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident <\/p>\n
       while crossing the road.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                                                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
       This court in Swaran Singh  (Supra) observed as under:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              “…  …  …Perjury   has also  become  a way  of  life <\/p>\n
       in   the   law   courts.     A   trial   Judge   knows   that   the <\/p>\n
       witness   is   telling   a   lie   and   is   going   back   on   his <\/p>\n
       previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish <\/p>\n
       him   or   even   file   a   complaint   against   him.     He   is <\/p>\n
       required to sign the complaint himself which deters <\/p>\n
       him   from   filing   the   complaint.     Perhaps   law   needs <\/p>\n
       amendment   to   clause   (b)   of   Section   340   (3)   of   the <\/p>\n
       Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   in   this   respect   as   the <\/p>\n
       High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. <\/p>\n
       To   get   rid   of   the   evil   of   perjury,   the   court   should <\/p>\n
       resort   to   the   use   of   the   provisions   of   law   as <\/p>\n
       contained  in Chapter XXVI  of the Code of Criminal <\/p>\n
       Procedure.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
51.    In   a   recent   judgment   in   the   case   of  Mahila   Vinod  <\/p>\n
Kumari v.  State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34 this <\/p>\n
court   has   shown   great   concern   about   alarming   proportion   of <\/p>\n
perjury cases in our country.\n<\/p>\n
52.    The  main  question   which  arises  for  our  consideration   is <\/p>\n
whether  the  prevailing delay in  civil  litigation  can  be curbed?\n<\/p>\n
In   our   considered   opinion   the   existing   system   can   be <\/p>\n
drastically   changed   or   improved   if   the   following   steps   are <\/p>\n
taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   3<\/span>\n\n\nA.    Pleadings   are   foundation   of   the   claims   of \n\n\n\n      parties.     Civil   litigation   is   largely   based   on \n\n\n\n      documents.     It   is   the   bounden   duty   and \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      obligation   of   the   trial   judge   to   carefully <\/p>\n
      scrutinize,  check  and verify the pleadings  and <\/p>\n
      the documents filed by the parties.   This must <\/p>\n
      be done immediately after civil suits are filed.\n<\/p>\n
B.    The   Court   should   resort   to   discovery   and <\/p>\n
      production   of   documents   and   interrogatories <\/p>\n
      at   the   earliest   according   to   the   object   of   the <\/p>\n
      Code.  If this exercise is carefully carried out, it <\/p>\n
      would   focus   the   controversies   involved   in   the <\/p>\n
      case and help the court in arriving at truth of <\/p>\n
      the matter and doing substantial justice.\n<\/p>\n
C.    Imposition   of   actual,   realistic   or   proper   costs <\/p>\n
      and   or   ordering   prosecution   would   go   a   long <\/p>\n
      way in controlling the tendency of introducing <\/p>\n
      false   pleadings   and   forged   and   fabricated <\/p>\n
      documents   by   the   litigants.     Imposition   of <\/p>\n
                                                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
      heavy   costs   would   also   control   unnecessary <\/p>\n
      adjournments   by   the   parties.       In   appropriate <\/p>\n
      cases   the   courts   may   consider   ordering <\/p>\n
      prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to <\/p>\n
      maintain   purity   and   sanctity   of   judicial <\/p>\n
      proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
D.    The  Court  must adopt  realistic and pragmatic <\/p>\n
      approach in granting mesne profits.  The Court <\/p>\n
      must   carefully   keep   in   view   the   ground <\/p>\n
      realities while granting mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
E.    The   courts   should   be   extremely   careful   and <\/p>\n
      cautious   in   granting   ex-parte   ad   interim <\/p>\n
      injunctions   or   stay   orders.     Ordinarily   short <\/p>\n
      notice   should   be   issued   to   the   defendants   or <\/p>\n
      respondents   and  only  after   hearing   concerned <\/p>\n
      parties appropriate orders should be passed.\n<\/p>\n
F.    Litigants   who   obtained   ex-parte   ad   interim <\/p>\n
      injunction   on   the   strength   of   false   pleadings <\/p>\n
                                                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
      and   forged   documents   should   be   adequately <\/p>\n
      punished.   No one should be allowed to abuse <\/p>\n
      the process of the court.\n<\/p>\n
G.    The principle of restitution be fully applied in a <\/p>\n
      pragmatic   manner   in   order   to   do   real   and <\/p>\n
      substantial justice.\n<\/p>\n
H.    Every   case   emanates   from   a   human   or   a <\/p>\n
      commercial problem and the Court must make <\/p>\n
      serious   endeavour   to   resolve   the   problem <\/p>\n
      within the framework of law and in accordance <\/p>\n
      with   the   well   settled   principles   of   law   and <\/p>\n
      justice.\n<\/p>\n
I.    If   in   a   given   case,   ex   parte   injunction   is <\/p>\n
      granted,  then  the  said application for grant of <\/p>\n
      injunction   should   be   disposed   of   on   merits, <\/p>\n
      after   hearing   both   sides   as   expeditiously   as <\/p>\n
      may be possible on a priority basis and undue <\/p>\n
      adjournments should be avoided.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
       J.    At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court <\/p>\n
             should   prepare   complete   schedule   and   fix <\/p>\n
             dates   for   all   the   stages   of   the   suit,   right   from <\/p>\n
             filing         of         the         written         statement         till <\/p>\n
             pronouncement   of   judgment   and   the   courts <\/p>\n
             should   strictly   adhere   to   the   said   dates   and <\/p>\n
             the   said   time   table   as   far   as   possible.     If   any <\/p>\n
             interlocutory application is filed then the same <\/p>\n
             be   disposed   of   in   between   the   said   dates   of <\/p>\n
             hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the <\/p>\n
             date   fixed   for   the   main   suit   may   not   be <\/p>\n
             disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
53.    According   to   us,   these   aforementioned   steps   may   help <\/p>\n
the   courts   to   drastically   improve   the   existing   system   of <\/p>\n
administration   of   civil   litigation   in   our   Courts.     No   doubt,   it <\/p>\n
would   take   some   time   for   the   courts,   litigants   and   the <\/p>\n
advocates to follow the aforesaid steps, but once it is observed <\/p>\n
across   the   country,   then   prevailing   system   of   adjudication   of <\/p>\n
civil courts is bound to improve.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
54.       While imposing   costs we have to take into consideration <\/p>\n
pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the <\/p>\n
respondents   had   to   actually   incur  in   contesting   the   litigation <\/p>\n
before   different   courts.     We   have   to   also   broadly   take   into <\/p>\n
consideration   the   prevalent   fee   structure   of   the   lawyers   and <\/p>\n
other   miscellaneous   expenses   which   have   to   be   incurred <\/p>\n
towards   drafting   and   filing   of   the   counter   affidavit, <\/p>\n
miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee <\/p>\n
etc.\n<\/p>\n
55.       The   other   factor   which   should   not   be   forgotten   while <\/p>\n
imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents <\/p>\n
were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various <\/p>\n
courts.   The   appellants   in   the   instant  case   have   harassed   the <\/p>\n
respondents   to   the   hilt   for   four   decades   in   a   totally   frivolous <\/p>\n
and   dishonest   litigation   in   various   courts.     The   appellants <\/p>\n
have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last <\/p>\n
40 years.\n<\/p>\n
56.       On   consideration   of   totality   of   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the <\/p>\n
                                                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
well   reasoned   impugned   order\/judgment.     These   appeals   are <\/p>\n
consequently   dismissed   with   costs,   which   we   quantify   as <\/p>\n
Rs.2,00,000\/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).  We are imposing the <\/p>\n
costs   not   out   of   anguish   but   by   following   the   fundamental <\/p>\n
principle   that   wrongdoers   should   not   get   benefit   out   of <\/p>\n
frivolous litigation.\n<\/p>\n
57.    The  appellants are directed to pay the costs imposed  by <\/p>\n
this court along with the costs imposed by the High Court to <\/p>\n
the respondents within six weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
58.    The suit pending before the trial court is at the final stage <\/p>\n
of   the   arguments,   therefore,   the   said   suit   is   directed   to   be <\/p>\n
disposed   of   as   expeditiously   as   possible   and   in   any   event <\/p>\n
within   three   months   from   the   date   of   the   communication   of <\/p>\n
the order.\n<\/p>\n
59.    We  make   it  abundantly  clear  that  the  trial  court  should <\/p>\n
not  be influenced   by   any  observation  or  finding  arrived   at  by <\/p>\n
us   in   dealing   with   these   appeals   as   we   have   not   decided   the <\/p>\n
matter on merits of the case.\n<\/p>\n
60.    Before parting with this case we would like to record our <\/p>\n
deep   appreciation   for   extremely   valuable   assistance   provided <\/p>\n
                                                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
by   the   learned  amicus   curiae.     Dr.   Arun   Mohan  did   not  only <\/p>\n
provide   valuable   assistance   on   the   questions   of   law   but <\/p>\n
inspected   the   entire   record   of   the   trial   court   and   for   the <\/p>\n
convenience   of   the   court   filed   the   entire   court   proceedings, <\/p>\n
other   relevant   documents,   such   as   the   plaint,   written <\/p>\n
statement   and   relevant   judgments.   It   is   extremely   rare   that <\/p>\n
such good assistance is provided by the amicus curiae.  In our <\/p>\n
considered   view,   learned   amicus   curiae   has   discharged   his <\/p>\n
obligation towards the profession in an exemplary manner.\n<\/p>\n
61.    These appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the <\/p>\n
aforementioned directions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     (Dalveer Bhandari)<\/p>\n
                                                        …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         (Deepak Verma)<\/p>\n
New Delhi<\/p>\n
July 4, 2011<\/p>\n
                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011 Author: ……………………..J. Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4912-4913 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3157-3158 of 2011) Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. …Appellants Versus Nirmala […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-140207","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-19T21:38:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-19T21:38:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5880,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-19T21:38:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-19T21:38:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-19T21:38:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011"},"wordCount":5880,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011","name":"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-19T21:38:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramrameshwari-devi-ors-vs-nirmala-devi-ors-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140207","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140207"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140207\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140207"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140207"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140207"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}