Petitioner / decree holder.                -  Rabin Pal.

Opposite Party / Judgment Debtor –

                                                 Shri Animesh Sanyal.

Order No. 10                                 Date : 20-08-2013.

          C/R is put up today for order over the show cause petition filed by the complainant pursuant to the order no. 5 dated 03-07-2013. Seen the show cause filed by the complainant Rabin Pal.

          In disposing of the execution case together with show cause filed by the complainant we are astonished in fathoming the audacity of the  complainant, Rabin Pal in filing a frivolous  complaint and his persistent attempt to hoodwink the Forum and misadventure to obtain a decree on the basis of a totally false complaint. Our observations are as follows :

1)    The complainant instituted the complaint on 19-02-2012  against the O.P. Animesh Sanyal alleging that in spite of receiving advance amount of Rs. 5,500/- for repairing the rolling shutter and grill gate at 19, Buxarah 1^st Bye Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, did  not deliver the materials, nor intall the grill gate. Subsequently after passing of the decree it is detected that the complainant never resides at the same address which is the subject matter of a suit under Specific Performance of Contract in between his brothers Monoj Pal and  Subrata Pal Vs. Smt. Sefali  Roy and such Suit being no. 58 of 2008 is pending before the 3^rd Court of  Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Howrah, since 2008. Surprisingly the complainant posed himself to be the occupier of 19, Buxarah 1^st Bye Lane and instituted the complaint.

2)     Vide Order no. 8 dated 18-07-2013 we directed the I/C,  Shibpur P.S., Howrah, to conduct an enquiry with respect to the constructive  possession of the same address. I/C, Shibpur P.S. vide his report dated 06-08-2013 confirmed that Smt. Pratima Pal, Monoj Pal and Subrata Pal are in possession of the premises no. 19, Buxarah 1^st Bye Lane, Howrah. Therefore, it is amply proved that the complainant is never in possession of the same address since long and he has taken recourse to absolute falsehood to hoodwink the Court.

3)    That the complainant Rabin Pal was never in possession of the same address is further proved from Shibpur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2005. This criminal case was started against this Rabin Pal ( complainant ) and his son Bapan Pal U/Ss 427, 379, 420, 506 I.P.C. Smt. Pratima Pal, the mother of this complainant filed the FIR against her son Rabin Pal. In the charge sheet this Rabin Pal and his son Bapan Pal were shown as absconder. The address of Rabin Pal ( complainant ) appears to be 65, Lakshan Das Lane, District – Howrah, in a M.P. Case No. 756 of 2013. Therefore, it is evident from the charge sheet as well as the M.P. Case that Rabin Pal never resides at 19, Buxarah 1^st Bye Lane, Howrah.

4)    Knowing fully well that he has been residing elsewhere, the complainant tried to convince the Forum that he has been residing in the above noted address i.e., 19, Buxarah 1^st Bye Lane, Howrah. He submitted good many numbers of rent receipts till the date 15-05-2013 issued by one Smt. Archana Pal.  These rent bills ranged since 21-03-1996 till 15-05-2013. We have no hesitation in our mind that Rabin Pal collected these rent receipts with underhand means only to hoodwink the Court. On scrutiny of all the rent receipts we come across that those were prepared almost in a same sitting and the ink used are almost the same. We are convinced that these rent receipts are manufactured inasmuch as it is amply proved from our observation in the forgoing paragraphs that he has never been in 19, Buxarah 1^st Bye Lane, Howrah.

5)    Furthermore, the rent receipts starting  from 21-03-1996 till 06-05-1997 clearly show that the digits in every rent receipts after digit 19 are struck of by pen. We fail to understand how the address of the rent receipts can be interpolated if those are issued by the landlord who was presumably the owner of the same. We still reiterate that all those rent receipts are manufactured and prepared for the purpose of this complaint only to project his possession, which is not actually true. We further  fail to understand how the complainant Rabin Pal  could be so audacious to write his address as 19, Buxarah 1^st Bye Lane, Howrah, in the petition of complaint as well as in the execution petition. We have no hesitation in our mind that the complainant took recourse to such mischievous method only to diffuse and balance the internecine quarrel between him and his brother Manoj Pal. 

6)     Therefore, it is amply proved from our observation in the forgoing paragraphs that Rabin Pal secured the decree absolutely on false representation though he was not residing in the address being no. 19, Buxarah 1^st Bye Lane, Howrah. Such malafide intention of the complainant shall be treated and dealt with sternly. It is the established principle of law after the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex  Court that the Court / Forum cannot serve as an agency of oppression and to act upon at the instance of the opportunist parties to satiate the smouldering fire of revenge nurtured by him for long.

7)     Hon’ble National Commission in First  Appeal no. 502 of 2011 opined with much dismay that it is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petition in different Foras. Time and again Courts have held that if any litigant approaches the Court of Equity with unclean hands, suppress the material fact, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. Equity demands that unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opponent party, must be dealt with heavy hands.

8)    In another decision reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 904, Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that “Courts of Law should be careful to see through such diabolical plans of the interested party. These types of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourages frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.”

9)    Hon’ble Apex Court in another Civil Appeal being no. 4912 – 4913 of 2011 dated 4^th July, 2011 has been pleased to observe that in order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigations, Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation.

10)                       In a recent judgment reported in 2012 (4) ICC Hon’ble Apex  Court has opined that once the Court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion in pleading and documents, the Court should  impose appropriate costs.

11)                       In our considered view the instant show cause petition filed by complainant / decree holder Rabin Pal is just frivolous and vexatious. He obtained the decree in his complaint case through absolute misrepresentation and as such, the  bizarre  claim of Rabin Pal shall have to be discouraged by imposing handsome costs as prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

12)                       It is needless to mention that the order passed in complaint case no. 171 of 2012 is just a nullity as it was obtained through misrepresentation and utter falsehood exercised upon the Forum deliberately. Likewise, the show cause petition filed by the complainant Rabin Pal is rejected forthwith as his averments are just tissue of lies.

Hence,

                    O r d e r e d 

That the  complaint being no. HDF 171 of 2012 stands dismissed U/S 26 of the C .P. Act, 1986 as it is frivolous and vexatious. The instant Execution Case being no. 38 of 2013 automatically looses its force as the genesis of the same i.e. the complaint case no. 171 of 2012 stands dismissed.

The complainant Rabin Pal be directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for practicing fraud upon legal institution failing legal consequences shall follow. If such cost is realized 50% i.e., Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the O.P. Animesh Sanyal and 50% i.e., Rs. 5,000/- be deposited at the Consumer Welfare fund.

Member.                    President.