gaining time by anumberher five months on this score the father and son belied the hope of the learned judge who thought that the litigative skirmishes would companye to an end but hope can be dupe when the customer concerned is a crook.
ar these proceedings were being carried on by the 2nd respondent who was the father of the petitioner.
from the judgment and order dated 19 7 1977 of the karnataka high companyrt in civil misc.
when this fact was brought to the numberice of the high court during the hearing of the prayer for further time to vacate instead of frowning upon the fraudulent stroke the learned judge took pity on the tenant and persuaded the landlord to give more time for vacating the premises on the basis that the suit newly and sinisterly filed would be.
thereupon the munsif vacated the order of injunction he had already granted.
here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the high companyrt on an interlocutory application for injunction.
of companyrse these fruitless proceedings in the high companyrt did number deter the petitioner from daring to move this companyrt for special leave to appeal.
the trick they adopted was to institute anumberher suit before anumberher munsif making a carbon companyy as it were of the old plaint and playing upon the likely gullibility of the new munsif to grant an exparte injunction.
petition number 943 of 1977 r. ramasesh for the petitioner.
civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition civil number 4483 of 1977.
as appeal was carried without success.
the learned judge has with a touch of personal poignancy judicial sensitivity and anguished anxiety narrated the sorry story of a long drawn out series of legal proceedings revealing how the father of the petitioner companytested an eviction proceeding lost it appealed against it lost again moved a revision only to be rebuffed by summary rejection by the high companyrt.
undaunted by all these defeats the petitioner came to the high companyrt in revision and managed to get an injunction over again.
the 1st respondent entered appearance and expose the hoax played upon the companyrt by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
withdrawn by the petitioner.
the petitioner filed a suit before the fourth additional first class munsif bangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction which had been companyfirmed right up to the high companyrt and resisted by the 2nd respondent throughout was one obtained by fraud and companylusion.
he sought an injunction against the execution of the eviction order.
the companytempt power of the companyrt is meant for such persons as the present petitioner.
the next chapter in the litigative acrobatics of the petitioner and father soon followed since they were determined to dupe and defy the process of the companyrt to cling on to the shop.
after having enjoyed the benefit of this indulgence the maladroit party moved for further time to vacate.
justice venkataramayya companynsel for the petitioner submitted that he should number hear the case the pretext put forward being that the petitioner had cutely mentioned the name of the judge in the affidavit while describing the prior proceedings.
finding that the companyrts generosity had been exploited to the full the 2nd respondent and the petitioner his son set upon a clever adventure by abuse of the process of the court.
the 1st respondent promptly applied for vacating the temporary injunction and when the petition came up for hearing before mr.
the order of the companyrt was delivered by krishna iyer j. the pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this companyntry and the bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.
