New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that it should take note of frivolous appeals, which are being filed against unappealable orders wasting precious judicial time.
However, the top court allowed an appeal challenging the Calcutta High Court order, passed in December 2019, with a “token cost” of Rs 5 lakh.
A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said: “We find that it is high time that this court should take note of frivolous appeals being filed against unappealable orders wasting precious judicial time. As it is, the courts in India are already over burdened with huge pendency.”
The bench added that unwarranted proceedings, at the behest of the parties who can afford to bear the expenses of such litigations, must be discouraged. “We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed with token costs. The respondent-plaintiff shall pay a token cost of Rs 5 lakh to the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society (MIG).”
The top court judgement came on an appeal filed by a company and others against another company in a matter connected with alleged infringement of trade mark. The appeal had challenged the December 24, 2019 order passed by the high court’s division bench, arising out of the order passed by the single judge of the high court dated April 2, 2019, by which court granted time to the appellants-defendants to file affidavit-in-opposition and directed to post the matter after three weeks.
The bench said: “The impugned judgment and order dated December 24, 2019 is quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the application filed by the respondent plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.”
The top court said there are various observations made by the division bench of the high court, which in its view are “totally unwarranted”.
The bench added that till further orders are passed by the single judge, the order passed by on April 2, 2019 would continue to operate.
“We clarify that we have not touched upon the merits of the matter and none of the observations either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court or by us, would in any manner weigh with the learned Single Judge while deciding the application for injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff,” it said.
(IANS)
