1 2026:CGHC:104-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 27 of 2025 • Raja Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Singh Thakur, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Talapara, Bajrang Chowk, P.S. Civil Line And Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1. Aditya Kumar S/o Late Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 34 Years, 2. Yogendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 31 Years, 3. Ku. Sakshi D/o Late Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 34 Years, 4. Smt. Geeta Bai W/o Late Shri Laxman Singh Aged About 54 Years, All 1 to 4 Are R/o Village Deo Baloda Sagarpara, Charoda PS Bhilai- 3, Post Office Deo Baloda, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). 5. Smt. Seeta Bai Wd/o Ram Singh (Legal Heirs), Aged About 65 Years, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Talapara, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 02/01/2026 1) The appellant- Raja Singh, the son of Ram Singh, has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.05 17:52:26 +0530 2 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 04/09/2021 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.442-A/2010, whereby, the claim of his father was dismissed. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that a suit was instituted by the appellant’s father, namely, Ram Singh, on 11/01/2010 before the concerned trial Court, submitting inter-alia, that a registered deed of relinquishment dated, 24/01/2008 (Ex.P-1/D-1) executed by him in favour of respondents no.1 to 4, who are the legal representatives of his younger brother, namely, Laxman Singh, be declared as null and void and, also for injunction restraining them from his peaceful possession. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No.15-A/2010 and was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 06/12/2016 (Annexure A-2). 3) The aforesaid ex-parte judgment and decree was set aside by the said court on 09/01/2020 in MJC No.328 of 2019 after allowing the application filed by the respondents no.1 to 4 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. After the restoration of the suit as such, it was tried by the concerned trial court and after hearing both the parties, the same was dismissed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur by virtue of the impugned judgment and decree dated 04/09/2021 while upholding the due execution of the alleged deed of relinquishment, executed on 24/01/2008 by the appellant’s father, namely, Ram Singh. 4) It appears further that being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, dated 04/09/2021, an appeal was preferred by the 3 father (Ram Singh) of the appellant which was registered as FA No.132 of 2021 and during the pendency of the said appeal, he died on 04/12/2022 and on account of his sad demise, an application enumerated under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of his legal representatives and also for setting aside the abatement of the said appeal under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC was filed and, the appellant-Raja Singh, who was the respondent no.5 therein had, however, raised no objection to both the said applications and accordingly after allowing of both the applications, Seeta Bai, the wife of his father was directed to be substituted in his place vide order dated 03/07/2024. Pertinently to be noted here at this juncture that, on 15/10/2024, said Seeta Bai had withdrawn the said appeal, which was, accordingly dismissed and, after the dismissal of the said appeal as such, the appellant, being a son of said Ram Singh had moved an application for its restoration, but the same was found to be dismissed vide order dated 17/01/2025 (Annexure A-4) in MCC No.04 of 2025. 5) What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid facts that the appeal, being FA No.132 of 2021, preferred by the appellant’s father against the impugned judgment and decree, dated 04/09/2021 was got dismissed as withdrawn and which has attained its finality by efflux of time as instead of questioning the said order dated 15/10/2024 passed in FA No.132 of 2021 and, the order, dated 17/01/2025 passed in MCC No.04 of 2025, the appellant has, however, adopted an unusual approach for preferring the instant appeal questioning the impugned judgment and decree, dated 04/09/2021 passed in Civil Suit No.442-A of 2010. Therefore, in view 4 of such circumstances, the instant appeal as preferred by the appellant appears to be misconceived in nature and appears to have been made with an ulterior motive and, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law, which, therefore, deserves to be burdened with exemplary costs, as the Supreme Court in the matter of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Another v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 496, had deprecated the conduct of the litigants in flooding the Court with frivolous litigations, as a result of which, the genuine matters, which require consideration, are delayed. The relevant observations made therein at paragraphs 13 and 14, read as under:- “13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of 5 justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.” 6) In view of the aforesaid mandate given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the instant appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands Only) payable by the appellant to the High Court Legal Services Committee, through its Secretary Member within a period of 60 days, from today. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Chandrakant