The Supreme Court on Monday took exception to the recent trend of petitions and pleadings, especially in family law cases, containing outrageous and unbelievable arguments [K Vadivel v K Shanthi and ors].

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said that such petitions and pleadings add to the pendency of cases and contribute to the delay in disposal of other meritorious cases as well.

Hence, such proceedings or applications that prima facie lack merit should not be instituted, the Bench exhorted.

"Of late, we notice that pleadings/petitions with outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments are made with no inhibition whatsoever. This is especially so in some family law proceedings, both civil and criminal. Reading some of the averments therein, we are left to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of what has been written purportedly on their behalf, before appending their signatures. These misadventures directly impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice," the Court said.

It is high time that frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics, the Bench stressed.

It added that litigants and the society at large have a legitimate expectation of speedy justice.

"It is beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important facet of rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can be disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly. The administration of justice feeds on the faith of the citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely shake that faith and confidence."

The observations came while quashing a ruling of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court calling for further investigation into a murder case after substantial arguments in the trial that had already commenced.

The apex court observed that the present case was one where cogent grounds for further probe did not exist.

"While it is true that delay in trial will cede to the pursuit of truth, however, a distinction should be made between cases where there exist genuine grounds to hold up the proceedings and cases where such grounds do not exist. This case is a classic example of the latter category," the Court opined.

The net result has been that all the stakeholders in the process contributed to the delay in spite of eleven years having elapsed after the incident, it added.

Further, the judgment of the High Court gave no valid justification for ordering further probe.

Hence, it set aside the High Court order trial court and directed the trial court not to take the additional chargesheet on record.

The Court also ordered the trial court to hear the parties afresh and deliver its judgment within eight weeks.

The Court also desisted from imposing costs on the litigants in view of the fact that the High Court had allowed the plea for further probe.

Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj appeared for the accused, one K Vadivel. Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu appeared for the wife of the deceased.

Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.

[Read Judgment]