Delhi HC pulls up litigant, lawyers for by-passing Res Judicata, abusing legal process [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court recently pulled up a litigant and his lawyers for abusing the process of law by attempting to re-agitate a settled case citing technical differences. In view of the noted misconduct, Justice Valmiki J Mehta also recommended the imposition of heavy costs on the litigant and referral of the matter to the Delhi Bar Council for initiating action against the errant lawyers..The matter related to a Regular First Appeal (RFA) before the High Court, filed challenging an August 2018 trial court judgment passed against the appellant, while disposing of two cross suits in a property dispute..The appellant had first filed RFA No. 884/2018 challenging this verdict. Eventually, this appeal was withdrawn. Instead, the appellant only obtained more time to vacate the property in question. The appeal was accordingly disposed of by the Delhi High Court in October 2018. .However, a second appeal, RFA 78/2019 was filed in the matter thereafter, through a different set of advocates..This second appeal was filed contending that the earlier appeal only challenged the trial court verdict to the extent that it decreed the suit filed by the respondents and that it did not challenge the dismissal of the appellant’s suit. This, despite the fact that the trial court had disposed of both suits by a common judgment since they dealt with identical issues..Terming this attempt to re-agitate the issue on such technical grounds as an abuse of the process of law, the Justice Mehta noted,.“In my opinion, this is a fit case for sending the pressed judgment passed today to the Bar Council of Delhi as also for initiating criminal complaint case against the appellant inasmuch as the order passed…earlier…resulting in affirming the Impugned (trial court) Judgment… operates as res judiciata against the appellant and bars the appellant from filing the present appeal…..… It is an abuse of the process of law that an issue which has been heard and finally decided is sought to be re-agitated on technical grounds…”.Further, the Court held that the matter ought to be referred to the Bar Council of Delhi for criminal action..“I also find that the present to be a fit case where copy of this judgment be sent to the Bar Council of Delhi treating the present judgment as complaint against the present Advocates…who have argued this appeal that such Advocates who abuse the process of law ought to be proceeded against… inasmuch as it is unacceptable that the Advocates knowing the finality of an earlier litigation…have chosen to file this appeal…”.The Court also briefly explained that, even on merit, the appellant would not be entitled to stake a claim over the disputed property. In view of these observations, the Court dismissed the appeal holding,.“… the present appeal is dismissed firstly on the ground of res judicial on account of the impugned judgment achieving finality as regards the issue pressed in this appeal being identical in the earlier RFA…which was withdrawn. The present appeal is secondly also barred by the principle of estoppel inasmuch as the present appellant, who was the appellant in (the earlier) RFA, took time tot vacate the premises up to 31.03.2019 and this undertaking to the Court is on the basis that the appellant has no right in the suit property which is now again claimed through the present appeal.” .Justice Mehta proceeded to direct that a costs of Rs 1, 00, 000 be paid by the appellant within four weeks. .However, after the appellant sought to withdraw the suit, the Court dispensed with this payment, as well as its earlier direction to send the case to the Delhi Bar Council to initiate action against the errant advocates..“In view of the withdrawal of the appeal, the directions..with respect to imposition of costs of Rs 1, 00, 000 and sending of copy of this judgment to the Bar Council of Delhi will not come into operation.”.Read the Judgment: