Mohan Lal vs Union Of India And Others

Vide separate order pronounced today. OA is dismissed.

Counsel for the applicant makes an oral prayer for grant of leave to appeal under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. However, he

has not been able to point out any substantial question of law of general public importance involved in the matter which warrants grant of leave to

appeal.

Accordingly ,request for leave to appeal is declined.

Present is glaring case of misuse of process of law, which is evident from the following facts :

(i) The applicant, who was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps (AMC) as Sepoy Cook (spl) on 26.03.1973 was invalided out of service on 31.07.1981

on the ground that he was found to be suffering from 'Neurosis'. He was not granted disability pension on the ground that although the assessment of

disability was 50% for two years, however, the disability was 'neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service'. The appeal preferred by the

applicant did not find any favourable consideration. Hence, the applicant filed Special Civil Application No. 436 of 1986 before the Hon'ble Gujrat High

Court. The petition was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to make a representation to the Secretary, Defence Department of Government of

India.

(ii) Pursuant thereto, on 11.03.1987, the applicant submitted his representation to Respondents/Union of India. However, the same was rejected.

(iii) Another writ petition i.e. C.W.P. 1043 of 1991, was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 03.04.1991 and the same was dismissed on

the ground that the Gujrat High Court vide order dated 21.08.1986 reached conclusion that Court can do nothing about it in exercise of its power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The representation made by the applicant was considered and rejected and, therefore, the High Court did not

find any ground to interfere with the order and the writ petition was dismissed.

(iv) Thereafter, another representation was made by the applicant on 01.01.2001 to the Hon'ble President of India. However, it is stated that no

response was received.

(v) Thereupon, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 1843 of 2005 in the Hon'ble Uttaranchal High Court, where a plea was taken by the petitioner

(applicant) that neither Gujrat High Court nor Delhi High Court had rejected the writ petition of the petitioner on merits, as such, the writ petition is

maintainable before that Court. While dismissing the writ petition, Hon'ble High Court observed that Gujrat High Court had also considered the merits

of the case while dismissing the writ petition as not pressed. Thereafter High Court of Delhi had also dismissed the same. Since two of the High

Courts had dismissed the writ petitions, it was not proper to entertain the writ petition.

(vi) Thereafter, on 26.04.2007, the applicant filed a Defective Special Appeal No. 36 of 2007 before the Division Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand

but the same was also dismissed on 27.12.2007. The Review Application filed by the petitioner on 11.02.2008 was also dismissed vide order dated

20.02.2008.

(vii) Things did not end here. The applicant again filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 4045 of 2008 on 15.02.2008 before the Hon'ble High

Court Delhi. It will be relevant to reproduce the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing the writ petition, which reads as

under:

Learned counsel for the petitioner after some arguments seeks to withdraw the petition.

It has been noticed that the petitioner has been approaching different courts for the same relief which is not permissible. Relief has been

repeatedly declined to the petitioner. We would have been inclined to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner but restrain ourselves from

doing so in view of the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the petition and making it clear that in view of the issue

being foreclosed, no further proceedings will be filed by the petitioner.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reflects that Hon'ble High Court had clearly observed that the applicant had been approaching different

courts for the same relief which is not permissible and the Court was inclined to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner (applicant). However, since

the counsel for the petitioner wanted to withdraw the petition, therefore, no cost was imposed on the petitioner but it was made clear that 'In view of

the issue being foreclosed, no further proceedings will be filed by the petitioner'. Despite these clear directions by the High Court that the matter is

now foreclosed and the petitioner will not re-agitate the matter again, the applicant has the audacity to file the present OA again seeking the same

relief.

There is substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the filing of the present OA is not only abuse of process of

law but as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC' for brief) the present OA is barred by the principles of res

judicata.

Section 11 of the CPC provides for res judicata. This section so far is relevant for the present purpose and reads as under :

No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a

former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court

competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided

by such Court.

Section 11 contains the rule of the conclusiveness of the judgment based upon the maxim of Roman jurisprudence 'Interest reipublicae ut sit finis

litium (it concerns the state that there be an end to law suits); and, partly on the maxim 'Nemo debet his vexari pro un a et eadam causa' (no man

should be vexed twice over for the same cause). The section does not affect the jurisdiction of the court but operates as a bar to the trial of the suit or

issue, if the matter in the suit was directly or substantially in issue in the previous suit between the same parties litigating under the same title in a

court, competent to try the subsequent suit in which such issue has been raised.

This principle is based on the need of finality to the judicial decisions. It operates as a. bar to try the same issue again and again. Its aim is to

prevent multiplicity of the proceedings and it accords finality to an issue which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the

same parties decided and became final, so that the parties are not vexed twice over. Vexatious litigation should be put to an end and the valuable time

of the court is saved. It is based on public policy.

Although as per Section 23 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Tribunal is not bound by the procedures laid down in the CPC but it further

provides that it shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and the principle of natural justice provides that the matter which has attained finality,

should not be allowed to be agitated again and again.

Needless to say, in the instant case, the subjectmatter of the present litigation was not only agitated before one High Court but it was re-agitated

before two other High Courts. In the last order, Honble High Court of Delhi had taken a very serious view of the matter and, in fact, intended to

impose exemplary costs upon the applicant but refrained from doing so by observing that the matter will not be re-agitated again. However, even these

observations did not deter the applicant to re-agitate the matter before this Tribunal.

Under the circumstances, by filing the present OA, the applicant has not only wasted the valuable time of the Tribunal but has also caused

harassment to the respondents to litigate on an issue which has already been settled long ago.

In view of the same, present OA is dismissed. Although we were inclined to impose exemplary costs upon the applicant for filing such litigations

and re -agitate the matter again and again, however, keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was

only a cook and is a poor person not earning any pension, therefore, we impose a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon the applicant to deposit the same in

the Registry of the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of this order.

With these observations, OA is dismissed. All other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

Pronounced in open court on this 17th day of March, 2020.