MUMBAI: Bombay high court imposed Rs 1 lakh as exemplary cost on a petitioner after rejecting his second review plea and saying he wasted precious time of the court since 2009, by filing frivolous litigation.
Justice Prithviraj Chavan in a judgment pronounced on July 15 said, “such practices has to be nipped in the bud.”
The judgment was in a second review petition filed by a 67-year-old former bank officer against Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, where he was employed, after dismissal of the first review petition by the HC in October 2020.
His review plea was against disciplinary proceeding initiated against him for alleged “unauthorized absence from service between August 21, 1994 to September 14, 1995.”
The court below held that his absence till September 30, 1994 was authorized.
The HC said that even despite a clear warning in 2019 from the HC when dismissing his appeal, he filed a second review petition after the first was dismissed “the petitioner was hell-bent in prosecuting the second review petition, such conduct is highly deprecated as the petitioner appears to be incorrigible.”’
Order 47, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically bars second review. It says, “No application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.” The HC said, “The Second Review, therefore, cannot be entertained’’ but observing the “chequered history” in the matter where the party appeared in person, the HC said it had suggested that he engage a counsel of choice as he “unable to put forth his case properly.”
His second review plea was literally the same as the first said the HC.
The HC said, “petitioner cannot be said to be unmindful of his several unsuccessful attempts and its ultimate fate. He is not a naive person. He is, indeed, fully aware that he has been fighting a lost legal battle which has no merit at all. Looking to the overall conduct of the petitioner, there can hardly be any reason to take a sympathetic view due to his advanced age.” And added in the judgment, “Such tendencies need to be nipped in the bud by imposing exemplary costs. Such elements cannot be permitted to take the system for a ride by filing unmerited multiple proceedings and to drag the proceedings endlessly.”