Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Courts Should Curb Uncalled and Frivilous Litigation by Ensuring No Benefits Should Be Gained by the Wrongdoer 2011 SC

Courts Should Curb Uncalled and Frivilous Litigation by Ensuring No Benefits Should Be Gained by the Wrongdoer 2011 SC

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14 |Likes:
In Ramrameshwari Devi case before supreme court Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma held that "In case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits. While imposing costs the Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic
what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before
different courts."
In Ramrameshwari Devi case before supreme court Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma held that "In case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits. While imposing costs the Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic
what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before
different courts."

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/21/2012

pdf

text

original

 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4912-4913 OF 2011(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3157-3158 of 2011)Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. AppellantsVersusNirmala Devi and Ors. Respondents
JUDGEMENTDalveer Bhandari, J.
1.Leave granted.2.These appeals are directed against the judgment andorder dated 01.09.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition(Main) No. 1084 of 2010 and the order dated 25.10.2010passed in Review Petition No. 429 of 2010 in CivilMiscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 by the HighCourt of Delhi at New Delhi.
1
 
3.The apparent discernible question which requiresadjudication in this case seems to be a trivial, insignificantand small one regarding imposition of costs, but in fact, theseappeals have raised several important questions of law of greatimportance which we propose to deal in this judgment.Looking to the importance of the matter we requested Dr. ArunMohan, a distinguished senior advocate to assist this court asan Amicus Curiae.4.This is a classic example which abundantly depicts thepicture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and howunscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternityharass the respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system.5.The basic facts which are necessary to dispose of theseappeals are recapitulated as under:-6.In the year 1952, almost about half a century ago, thegovernment allotted a residential house bearing nos. 61-62,
2
 
I-Block, Lajpat Nagar-I, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad. The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964.7.On humane considerations of shelter, Ram Parshadallowed his three younger brothers Madan Lal, KrishanGopal and Manohar Lal to reside with him in the house.On16.11.1977, these three younger brothers filed a Civil SuitNo.993 of 1977 in the High Court of Delhi claiming that thisLajpat Nagar property belonged to a joint Hindu Family andsought partition of the property on that basis.8.The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 18.01.1982by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. Theappellants (younger brothers) of Ram Parshad, aggrieved bythe said judgment preferred a Regular First Appeal (OriginalSide) 4 of 1982 which was admitted to hearing on 09.03.1982.During the pendency of the appeal, Ram Parshad on15.01.1992 filed a suit against his three younger brothers formandatory injunction to remove them and for recovery of mesne profits. In 1984 Ram Parshad sold western half (No.61)to an outsider. That matter is no longer in dispute.
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->