Chennai: The Madras high court has dismissed with a cost of Rs 25,000, an appeal filed by a woman litigant, challenging an order of a single judge, which restrained her from making any ‘false’ allegations against IPS officer and a retired DGP S.R.Jangid.
A division bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah and T.Krishnavalli dismissed the appeal filed by V.Vidya with a cost of Rs 25,000, payable by her to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, High Court, Madras, for wasting the valuable time of the court.
The bench said S.R.Jangid has filed a suit for damages against Vidya. Pending suit, he has filed an application for grant of interim injunction. The single judge passed an order dated March 7, 2018 granting interim injunction. Subsequently, after hearing Vidya and taking note of the fact that the suit itself was filed by Jangid for damages against her for having allegedly made various unsubstantiated averments against him, has made absolute, the interim junction restraining her from making any further complaint against Jangid. The said order was challenged in this appeal. However, during the pendency of this appeal, she filed an application before the single judge for modification of the order making the interim injunction absolute, which was challenged in this appeal. The said application was also entertained by the single and a modified order was passed, which was not put to challenge by her, the bench added.
The bench said the modified order was to the effect that she shall not make any ‘false’ allegation against Jangid, meaning thereby, she was not restrained from preferring any genuine complaint or representation against Jangid or to pursue the complaints already preferred by her. It was not known as to whether the pendency of this appeal against the order dated April 13, 2018 was brought to the notice of the single judge when order dated February 8, 2019 was passed modifying the earlier order, which was the subject matter of this appeal. In any event, even by reason of the order of injunction granted by the single judge, the restriction was she should not indulge in making any false accusations against Jangid without any material to substantiate such allegations. This was more so that Jangid has filed the suit for damages from her for having made unsubstantiated allegation against him. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant, that the order of the single judge deprived her right as an aggrieved person to exhaust any remedy before the appropriate authority or the court of law, has to be allayed. It was reiterated that by reason of the order passed by the single judge, the fundamental right of the appellant to ventilate her genuine grievance before the appropriate authority has not been curtailed or taken away, the bench added.
The bench said, “We are of the view that the single judge had rightly granted the order of interim injunction and subsequently made it absolute. Further, the order dated April 13, 2018, which is challenged in this appeal, has been modified by the single judge on February 8, 2019 and therefore the appeal itself cannot be entertained. The present attempt on the part of the appellant in filing a petition for modification and getting modified order during the pendency of this appeal is not bonafide and it is only an attempt to give vent to her desperation. We also find that by reason of filing the present vexatious appeal, the appellant had wasted the valuable time of this court, which this court could have otherwise judiciously utilized in disposing of a lis involving a substantial question of law.
Therefore, we hold that the present appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable only to be dismissed”.
