The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Krishna Devi, a litigant in a 21-year-old property dispute, for filing a revision petition aimed at delaying the final adjudication of the case. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed Devi's plea challenging the dismissal of her application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which sought to reject the plaint on the grounds of limitation.
The original suit was filed in 2004, seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated May 14, 2003, was null and void, and for the dispossession of the respondent from the suit property. Devi contended that the suit was barred by limitation, as the plaint referred to a sale deed from 1961. However, the respondent argued that Devi's application was an attempt to delay the proceedings, as the sale deed in question was from 2003, not 1961.
The High Court noted that while an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC can be filed at any stage, filing such an application in a suit that has been pending since 2004, with evidence concluded and the matter at the stage of final arguments, was a tactic to delay adjudication. The Court emphasized that the application was filed solely to obstruct the proceedings and not on genuine legal grounds.
In a previous order on September 19, the High Court had granted an adjournment subject to the payment of ₹15,000 costs by Devi to the respondent. However, Devi failed to comply with this order, further indicating her intent to delay the proceedings.
The Court's decision underscores its commitment to expediting long-pending cases and discouraging tactics that aim to prolong litigation unnecessarily. By imposing costs, the Court aims to deter such delay tactics and uphold the principle of timely justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.