A Bombay high court division bench recently passed an interim order restraining Naziruddin Nizamuddin Kazi from any more legal proceedings without court permission.
The HC admitted the petition on an application filed by Maharashtra advocate general Ravi Kadam to declare Kazi a vexatious litigant.
"We are satisfied that the issues raised in this application filed by the advocate general require consideration," the bench said, scheduling the hearing in June 2011. when it will decide if Kazi should be declared a vexatious litigant.
Kazi is an advocate. His wife Kishwar is an assistant public prosecutor attached to a judicial first class magistrate`s court in Pune. Kazi filed the 115 defamation cases relying on every letter allegedly written by Kishwar, which he claimed were abusive.
Kishwar denied writing the letters and claimed that her husband had started filing cases against her after she lodged a dowry harassment complaint against him.
When the judges tried to effect a settlement, Kishwar said she wanted divorce, but Kazi insisted she return to him.
Under the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, the HC can brand a person a vexatious litigant if it is convinced he has "habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court, whether against the same person or against different persons". Such a litigant then has to obtain the permission of the high court or the district judge to file a fresh case or continue with existing cases filed by him.
"The law is to ensure that there is no abuse of court proceedings," said additional public prosecutor Aruna Pai, who represented the state.
Following an application filed by Kishwar, advocate general Ravi Kadam gave his nod to the petition seeking to declare Kazi a vexatious litigant.
Kazi, who appeared in person, sought dismissal of the application. He told Justices B H Marlapalle and U D Salvi that of the 115 cases, the court has taken cognizance of only 20, while the rest are pending.
"Despite our intervention, it appears that an amicable settlement between the parties does not appear to be possible, at least at this stage," the judges noted.
The HC admitted the petition on an application filed by Maharashtra advocate general Ravi Kadam to declare Kazi a vexatious litigant.
"We are satisfied that the issues raised in this application filed by the advocate general require consideration," the bench said, scheduling the hearing in June 2011. when it will decide if Kazi should be declared a vexatious litigant.
Kazi is an advocate. His wife Kishwar is an assistant public prosecutor attached to a judicial first class magistrate`s court in Pune. Kazi filed the 115 defamation cases relying on every letter allegedly written by Kishwar, which he claimed were abusive.
Kishwar denied writing the letters and claimed that her husband had started filing cases against her after she lodged a dowry harassment complaint against him.
When the judges tried to effect a settlement, Kishwar said she wanted divorce, but Kazi insisted she return to him.
Under the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, the HC can brand a person a vexatious litigant if it is convinced he has "habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court, whether against the same person or against different persons". Such a litigant then has to obtain the permission of the high court or the district judge to file a fresh case or continue with existing cases filed by him.
"The law is to ensure that there is no abuse of court proceedings," said additional public prosecutor Aruna Pai, who represented the state.
Following an application filed by Kishwar, advocate general Ravi Kadam gave his nod to the petition seeking to declare Kazi a vexatious litigant.
Kazi, who appeared in person, sought dismissal of the application. He told Justices B H Marlapalle and U D Salvi that of the 115 cases, the court has taken cognizance of only 20, while the rest are pending.
"Despite our intervention, it appears that an amicable settlement between the parties does not appear to be possible, at least at this stage," the judges noted.
Source: Times Of India
No comments:
Post a Comment