Deepak Verma JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 and the order dated 25.10.2010 passed in Review Petition No. 429 of 2010 in Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1084 of 2010 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
3. The apparent discernible question which requires adjudication in this case seems to be a trivial, insignificant and small one regarding imposition of costs, but in fact, these appeals have raised several important questions of law of great importance which we propose to deal in this judgment. Looking to the importance of the matter we requested Dr. Arun Mohan, a distinguished senior advocate to assist this Court as an Amicus Curiae.
4. This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how unscrupulous litigants (Appellants in this case) can till eternity harass the Respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system.
5. The basic facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as under:
6. In the year 1952, almost about half a century ago, the government allotted a residential house bearing Nos. 61-62, I-Block, Lajpat Nagar-I, measuring 200 yards to Ram Parshad. The Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 31.10.1964.
7. On humane considerations of shelter, Ram Parshad allowed his three younger brothers ? Madan Lal, Krishan Gopal and Manohar Lal to reside with him in the house. On 16.11.1977, these three younger brothers filed a Civil Suit No. 993 of 1977 in the High Court of Delhi claiming that this Lajpat Nagar property belonged to a joint Hindu Family and sought partition of the property on that basis.
8. The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 18.01.1982 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. The Appellants (younger brothers) of Ram Parshad, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a Regular First Appeal (Original Side) 4 of 1982 which was admitted to hearing on 09.03.1982. During the pendency of the appeal, Ram Parshad on 15.01.1992 filed a suit against his three younger brothers for mandatory injunction to remove them and for recovery of mesne profits. In 1984 Ram Parshad sold western half (No. 61) to an outsider. That matter is no longer in dispute.
9. The first appeal filed by the other three younger brothers of Ram Parshad against Ram Parshad was dismissed on 09.11.2000. Against the concurrent findings of both of the judgments, the Appellants filed a Special Leave Petition No. 3740 of 2001 in this Court which was also dismissed on 16.03.2001.
10. In the suit filed by Ram Parshad (one of the Respondents) (now deceased) against the Appellants in these appeals the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 Code of Civil Procedure as alleged in para No. 1 of Preliminary Objection?
2. Whether Defendants are licencees in the suit premises and if so whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the same from them?
3. Whether suit of Plaintiff is time barred?
4. Whether suit has been properly valued for the purpose of........