The Supreme Court strongly criticized the legal heirs of a litigant for filing multiple vexatious applications in the Gujarat High Court concerning property rights. The case involved repeated applications for the restoration of a case that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Datta asserted that the Gujarat High Court had made a mistake by entertaining these applications without providing reasons.

Erroneous High Court Decision In this instance, the legal heirs submitted applications on five occasions, all of which were dismissed for non-prosecution. The sixth application was eventually accepted by the High Court, subject to a fine of ₹15,000.

Preventing Misuse of Legal Process The Supreme Court emphasized that no litigant should be allowed to misuse the legal process, and the High Court had erred in entertaining such vexatious applications without offering any justification. While setting aside the High Court’s decision to entertain the application, the Supreme Court directed the litigants to deposit the ₹15,000 fine imposed by the High Court.

Dispute Over Property Rights The case revolved around a dispute concerning the rights of a watchman to certain property within a natural therapy center’s premises. The watchman, who had been granted residence on the property while employed by the center, claimed ownership after being dismissed. He sought a permanent injunction against the center’s interference with his possession of the premises. The legal heirs pursued the litigation after the watchman’s death. The Supreme Court allowed the center’s appeal against a High Court ruling favoring the watchman’s legal heirs.

Repeated Pleas for Restoration Over several years, multiple applications were filed to restore a review plea, all of which were dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the final application was allowed with a ₹15,000 cost, leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention.**

Calling for Prudent Legal Process The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of a responsible and efficient legal process, discouraging the misuse of multiple vexatious pleas in court proceedings.**

Senior Advocate IH Syed, along with a team of advocates, represented the appellants, the Vasant Nature Cure Hospital and Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust, while Advocate Ankit Acharya represented the legal heirs of the watchman.