ARVIND S BOBDE Vs. SANTRAMDAS LILARAM BHOJWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings are commenced by the Advocate-General under section 2 (1) of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971. The relief claimed is that the proceedings instituted by respondents 1 and 2 in Civil, Criminal and Co-operative Courts should be stayed and the respondents should be prevented from instituting any further proceedings. The facts set out in the application for seeking the relief are as follows:

(2.) THE Advocate-General claims that one Smt. Madhubala Sharma, Advocate, instructed the Advocate-General that the respondents are habitually and without any reasonable ground instituting vexatious proceedings in diverse Courts against Haresh, who is elder son of respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is a younger brother of Haresh. The Advocate-General claims that respondent No. 1 and Haresh are partners in firms, Messrs Lilaram Shewaram and the firm is carrying on business in money-lending. Haresh and respondent No. 1 are also carrying on business as partners in the firm known as Shewa Udyog. It is then claimed that Haresh contracted marriage with a Maharashtrian girl and that annoyed the respondents and the respondents suggested that Haresh should divorce his Maharashtrian wife. Haresh refused to accede to the suggestion and this led to the filing of civil and criminal proceedings which are 19 in number. The 19 cases are set out in paragraph 6 of the application and the details thereof are given in paragraph 8 of the application. The Advocate-General claims that in the civil suits the claim made by the respondents is not sustainable and in criminal cases the allegations are made without any evidence. On these averments, the applicant prays that the respondents should be prevented from instituting any proceedings in Civil, Criminal and Co-operative Court or any other Tribunal and the proceedings already instituted should not be permitted to be prosecuted.

(3.) IN answer to the petition respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit affirmed on June 13, 1989 and the perusal of the same indicates how the application was instituted by the Advocate-General on erroneous information. In Paragraph 7 of the return it is pointed out that out of the list of 19 cases listed in the application, items at Nos. 5 and 6 are repeated as Items 13 and 14. The respondents pointed out that these Items are identical and referred to two suits filed in the Ulhasnagar Court. The respondents then pointed out that out of the 17 Items, 7 are civil suits and 10 are criminal cases. The respondents then set out the break-up of the civil suits. Two suits are filed by respondent No. 1 on the Original Side of this Court against Messrs Retrite Engineering Company Private Limited for recovery of possession of premises and in these suits Haresh was not a party but got himself added as party-defendant by taking out Chamber Summons. Three suits are instituted in Ulhasnagar Court by three different parties who encroached upon the land of respondent No. 1 and in these suits along with respondent No. 1, Haresh is joined as party-defendant, being a partner of the firm. It is obvious that these three suits are not instituted by the respondents at their behest. One suit is filed in the Co-operative Court by respondent No. 3 for declaration against Crescent Co-operative Housing Society Limited in respect of Flat No. 24-A owned by him and which has been illegally transferred in the name of Haresh. Respondent No. 1 has filed Suit No. 4120 of 1984 against the petitioner in the City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking accounts of business activities carried on in the name of Messrs Renovations. Looking to the break-up of the suits, it is obvious that the claim of Haresh that suits have been instituted against him by the respondents without reasonable cause or vexatiously is nothing but a figment of imagination. In fact, Haresh himself has instituted five suits against the respondents and which fact was conveniently not disclosed to the Advocate-General.