Leave of Court necessary for vexatious litigant to institute or continue any civil or criminal proceedings.

§2

Summary

(1) If, on an application made by the Advocate General, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, civil or criminal, in any Court or Courts, whether against the same person or against different persons, the High Court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, order that no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be instituted by him in any Court (and that any legal proceedings instituted by him in any Court before the order shall not be continued by him),- (a) in Greater Bombay, without the leave of the High Court ; and (b) elsewhere in the State, without the leave of the District and Sessions Judge At the hearing of any such application, the Advocate General may appear through a pleader. (2) Such leave shall not be given unless the High Court or the Judge, as the case may be, is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings. (3) No appeal shall lie against an order refusing leave for the institution or continuance of any proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under sub-section (1). Nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal which may lie to or any proceeding before the Supreme Court. (4) If it appears to the High Court that the person against whom an application is made under sub-section (1), is unable, on account of poverty, to engage a pleader, the High Court may engage a pleader to appear for him. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "pleader" has the same meaning as in clause (15) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). (5) A copy of every order made under sub-section (1) directing any person to obtain leave before instituting or continuing proceedings shall be published in the Official Gazette and may also be published in such other manner as the High Court thinks fit.

(1) If, on an application made by the Advocate General, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, civil or criminal, in any Court or Courts, whether against the same person or against different persons, the High Court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, order that no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be instituted by him in any Court (and that any legal proceedings instituted by him in any Court before the order shall not be continued by him),- (a) in Greater Bombay, without the leave of the High Court ; and (b) elsewhere in the State, without the leave of the District and Sessions Judge At the hearing of any such application, the Advocate General may appear through a pleader. (2) Such leave shall not be given unless the High Court or the Judge, as the case may be, is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings. (3) No appeal shall lie against an order refusing leave for the institution or continuance of any proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under sub-section (1). Nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal which may lie to or any proceeding before the Supreme Court. (4) If it appears to the High Court that the person against whom an application is made under sub-section (1), is unable, on account of poverty, to engage a pleader, the High Court may engage a pleader to appear for him. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "pleader" has the same meaning as in clause (15) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). (5) A copy of every order made under sub-section (1) directing any person to obtain leave before instituting or continuing proceedings shall be published in the Official Gazette and may also be published in such other manner as the High Court thinks fit.

← Previous Section Next Section →

Explore this Chapter