The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the petition of a man who filed a frivolous case against his sister following her assertion of inheritance right and imposed Rs500,000 as cost on him which shall be payable to his sister.
The decision came on a petition of Razaul Haq who had filed a petition seeking a direction for the authorities to take action against an encroachment in front of his house in compliance with an anti-encroachment tribunal order.
The petitioner had submitted that he was facing problems due to an encroachment by his sister Farhat Ishrat who had built a small house on public land in front of his property.
He submitted that the anti-encroachment tribunal had ruled in his favour directing the authorities to take action. He submitted that despite that order, the relevant authorities had failed to enforce the
judgment.
A division bench of the high court headed by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar after hearing the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel observed that it was an admitted fact that a dispute between the petitioner and his sister pertained to the subject property involved in lawsuit concerning mutation and permanent injunction.
The high court observed that although the anti-encroachment tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter concerning the lease, it nevertheless recorded adverse findings against the respondent but granted the relief to approach the relevant authority for regularisation of the plot in question.
The high court observed that the respondent approached the authority concerned and the matter was pending. The SHC directed the authority acting under the provisions of the Sindh Katchi Abadis Act 1987 to decide the application in accordance with the relevant law.
The high court observed that it was manifest that the present matter constituted a clear case of malice. The bench observed that the petitioner, acting with ulterior motives, had initiated proceedings both before the tribunal and by filing the instant petition against his sister, following her assertion of inheritance rights.
It was observed that such conduct of the petitioner amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, as the petitioner had advanced vendetta by filing vexatious and frivolous claims.
The SHC observed that such actions not only wasted the valuable time of the court and the tribunal but also inflicted unnecessary anguish and distress upon the opposing party, resulting in unfair and unwarranted litigation.
The high court dismissed the petition with cost assessed in the amount of Rs500,000 and directed the petitioner to pay it to his sister. The bench ordered that costs shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue by the Nazir of the court.
The SHC observed that it was well-settled that frivolous, vexatious and speculative litigation placed an undue burden on the judicial system, artificially inflating the backlog of cases, thereby hindering the efficient administration of justice and delaying the adjudication of legitimate claims.
The bench observed that such litigation must be firmly discouraged, and one of the most effective deterrents against the filing of frivolous and vexatious claims was the imposition of substantial costs. The high court observed that the imposition of costs in such cases aligned with the right to a fair trial under the Article 10A of the Constitution as it not only deterred frivolous claims and defences but also ensured that valuable judicial time was reserved for the adjudication of genuine disputes.
“Costs serve as an offensive tool for plaintiffs with meritorious claims and as a defensive shield for defendants who have been unjustly dragged into litigation,” the court observed in its order.