Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2023INSC825
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5510 OF 2023
VASANT NATURE CURE HOSPITAL & PRATIBHA
MATERNITY HOSPITAL TRUST & ORS. .... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UKAJI RAMAJI-SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS
LEGAL HEIRS & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The appellants by way of present appeal have challenged the legality and
validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2022 passed by
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application (for
recall) No. 3 of 2019 in Regular Second Appeal No. 84 of 1997.
2. The appellants run a natural therapy center in the name and style of
‘Vasant Nature Care Hospital’ and ‘Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust’. The
Respondent No.1 – Ukaji Ramaji (since deceased, through his legal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2023.09.13
17:28:06 IST
Reason:
representatives) was employed as a watchman by the Appellant No. 1 –
trust to take care of the said hospitals. He was given one room to reside
1
for discharging his duties as watchman. On 25.06.1979, the appellant-
trust had relieved the said Ukaji Ramaji from his duties, he having started
indulging in illegal activities. The said Ukaji preferred Regular Civil Suit
No. 306 of 1979 against the appellant - trust seeking declaration that the
suit premises was of his ownership. He also sought permanent injunction
for restraining the appellants from interfering with his possession of the
suit premises. The said suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court, vide
the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1988. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree, the said Ukaji preferred a Regular Civil Appeal
being No. 67 of 1988 before the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad
(Rural). The said appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Court vide
the judgment and order dated 31.03.1997, in which it was held that the
said Ukaji held an irrevocable license over the suit property and such
license could be terminated only after giving a month’s notice. The
aggrieved appellants preferred the Second Appeal being No. 84 of 1997
before the High Court of Gujarat. The said Second Appeal came to be
allowed by the High Court vide the judgment and order dated 11.10. 2012.
The said Ukaji having expired pending the Second Appeal, his legal heirs
had preferred a SLP being SLP(Civil) No. 1373 of 2013 before this Court.
In the said SLP following order was passed by this Court on 28.01.2013 –
2
“Mr. Fakharuddin, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, seeks withdrawal of the special leave
petition as petitioners intend to file review
application before the High Court.
Special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn”.
3. As transpiring from the said order of this Court, the SLP was simply
dismissed as withdrawn after recording the statement of the counsel for
the respondents (i.e., SLP petitioners). However, about three years
thereafter i.e., 23.03.2016, the respondents preferred MCA being No. 01
of 2016 in Second Appeal No. 84 of 1997, seeking review of the judgment
and decree dated 11.10.2012. The said MCA for review in Second Appeal
came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the High Court on
11.04.2016.
4. Thereafter the respondents filed another MCA being No. 02 of 2016
seeking restoration of the review application i.e., MCA No. 01 of 2016.
The said MCA being No. 02 of 2016 also came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution by the High Court on 30.11.2016, along with the application
seeking condonation of delay.
5. The respondents again filed an MCA being No. 01 of 2017 seeking
restoration of the MCA No. 01 of 2016. The said MCA No. 1 of 2017 also
was dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution vide the order dated
08.03.2017. Another application being MCA No. 01 of 2018 was filed by
the respondents for restoration. The said MCA No. 01 of 2018 also came
to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
3
6. Yet again the respondents filed another application being MCA No. 01 of
2019 for restoration, which also came to be dismissed for want of
prosecution on 14.10.2019. Thereafter, another MCA No. 03 of 2019 was
filed for restoration in MCA No. 01 of 2019. The said application came to
be allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order with cost of
Rs.15,000/-.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. From the afore-stated state of affairs, it clearly emerges that though this
Court had not granted any specific permission to file any application
seeking review of the judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.
84 of 1997 in the SLP(Civil) No. 1373 of 2013, after a period of more than
three years, the respondents had preferred the MCA No. 01 of 2016
seeking review of the said judgment in Second Appeal. The said MCA No.
01 of 2016 having been dismissed for want of prosecution, the
respondents kept on filing one after the other Miscellaneous Civil
Applications i.e., 02 of 2016, 01 of 2017, 01 of 2018 and 01 of 2019. All
these applications were dismissed for want of prosecution. Under the
circumstances, there was no question of allowing the MCA No. 03 of 2019
seeking restoration of MCA No. 01 of 2019. The High Court without
assigning any reason whatsoever and in very casual manner has allowed
the said application i.e., MCA (for restoration) No. 03 of 2019 in MCA (for
restoration) No. 01 of 2019. No litigant should be permitted to be so
4
lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the
process of law, as the respondents have sought to do. The High Court
had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that
too without assigning any reason.
9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court
to the extent it allowed MCA (for restoration) No. 03 of 2019 in MCA No.
01 of 2019, is set aside, however the respondents shall deposit the cost
of Rs.15,000/- as directed by the High Court. The appeal stands allowed
accordingly.
……………………… J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
NEW DELHI; ……………………… J.
13.09.2023 [DIPANKAR DATTA]
5