Vasant Nature Cure Hospital & Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust vs Ukaji Ramaji

2023INSC825 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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

JUDGMENT

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

Signature Not Verified Respondent No.1 – Ukaji Ramaji (since deceased, through his legal Digitally signed by SNEHA DAS

representatives) was employed as a watchman by the Appellant No. 1 – Date: 2023.09.13 17:28:06 IST Reason:

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