Shreya Gupta
On 4th February 2025, in the case of Leelawati (dead) thr. Lrs. v. state of UP & Ors., the Supreme Court criticized a litigant for filing multiple petitions before the High Court while concealing the dismissal of an earlier petition. The Court, while dismissing the appeal, justified the imposition of costs and increased the penalty to ₹50,000, emphasizing that such measures are necessary to deter frivolous and vexatious litigation. The bench, comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar, heard the case where the appellant had challenged the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which had earlier dismissed her petition with a cost of ₹20,000 for filing a vexatious petition.
The appellant had initially filed an eviction suit against her tenant on grounds of bona fide need. While the trial court ruled in her favor, the Appellate Court later overturned the decision due to a lack of ownership proof. She then approached the Allahabad High Court, which issued an interim order in 2006 directing the tenant to pay ₹2,000 per month or face eviction. However, in 2012, the High Court dismissed the petition, thereby vacating the interim order. Despite this, the appellant proceeded to file another petition seeking police assistance for eviction, which was disposed of with directions to the authorities. When no action was taken, she filed yet another (third) petition, which was dismissed with a cost of ₹20,000 for concealing the previous dismissal and misleading the court by relying on the expired 2006 interim order.
Upon challenging this dismissal before the Supreme Court, the Court justified the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the appellant had misused the judicial process by filing multiple petitions and suppressing material facts. The Court ruled that the interim order of 2006 had merged with the final order of dismissal in 2012 and, therefore, could no longer be relied upon to seek a direction for eviction with police assistance. The Court reasoned that once the petition in which the interim order was granted had been dismissed, another petition could not be filed to enforce that interim order, as it had lost its enforceability after the dismissal of the original writ petition. The filing of the third petition was deemed unnecessary, vexatious, and frivolous, aimed solely at misleading the court for a favorable order while concealing the material fact of the first writ petition’s dismissal.
The Court held that such conduct amounted to an abuse of the judicial process and justified the imposition of exemplary costs. It observed that legal proceedings are meant to adjudicate disputes and provide justice, ensuring litigants’ trust and confidence in the judicial system. However, if a party misuses the process or attempts to secure an order through “trick and strategem,(?)” the courts are justified in imposing costs to curb such vexatious litigation. The Supreme Court found the ₹20,000 cost imposed by the High Court to be insufficient and increased it to ₹50,000, as the appellant had continued to pursue a frivolous claim even before the Supreme Court. The Court directed that the amount be deposited with the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Allahabad. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Leelawati (DEAD) Thr. Lrs. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1438 OF 2025
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar