“Precious Judicial time gets exhausted”: Delhi High Court berates ‘deliberate’ filing of ‘meritless’ applications in pending cases
The single-judge bench stated that the court was compelled to make such observations because it was conscious of its responsibility to the citizens of the country.
The Delhi High Court recently berated the “deliberate” filing of “meritless” applications in pending civil cases and observed that the “precious judicial time is exhausted” in adjudicating only the numerous Interim Applications.
A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said, “Until the Bar and Bench comes together to fix responsibility qua the meritless IAs filed, the main matters will continue to linger and will never see the light of the day”.
“The court is conscious of its duty towards the citizens of the country and thus, is constrained to make such observations,” it added.
The single-judge bench was hearing an application filed in a pending case involving issues arising from a man's will who had died in May 2021.
The deceased man's daughter approached the High Court for a temporary injunction prohibiting her mother and brother from "alienating or creating third-party rights" to the estate and assets mentioned in her father's will. She sought that an administrator is appointed and that the executors appointed by her father be removed.
Taking note of the submissions, the court observed that simply because one of the beneficiaries under the will was barred from accessing the will-other maker's assets or there had been unequal distribution could not be used to call the authenticity and genuineness of the will under challenge into question, especially since it had been registered.
While dismissing the application on merit and maintainability, the single-judge bench held, “Before parting, though not specifically in the facts of the present case, this court berates as to how a web of complex IAs (interlocutory applications) is deliberately created in the civil suits as well as other petitions pending, only to ensure that the main matter never meets its logical conclusion and the precious judicial time is exhausted in adjudicating only the numerous IAs”.
Conclusively, the court opined that the present application was liable to be dismissed not only on the merits but also on the ground of maintainability because Respondent No. 4 (one of the beneficiaries) had not previously applied to Section 301 of the Act.
Case Title: Swapnil Gupta & Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.