The act of forum shopping cannot be permitted and reflects the conduct of the petitioner in a poor light: High Court of Delhi
The practice of choosing the court in which to bring an action from among those courts that could properly exercise jurisdiction based on a determination of which court is likely to provide the most favourable outcome, known as forum shopping, cannot be permitted under Indian law.  This was held in the judgement passed by a single member bench of the High Court of Delhi consisting of Justice Asha Menon in the case of Sunil Kumar Vaid v General Mohyal Sabha &amp; others [CM (M) 468/2021] pronounced on 22nd July 2021. The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Vaid filed this petition challenging the order dated 15th July 2021 by the Trial Court. The petitioner argued that the trial court has ignored the petitioner’s plea that ballot papers may be distributed on that day. This was based on the report by an earlier Election Observer who declared that ballot papers were not properly issued by the then election commission and that the same was likely to prevail now. For these reasons the petitioner prayed that the order from 15th July 2021 be set aside and a Court observer be appointed to supervise, monitor and conduct the Society Elections of the respondent no.1. The counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1/The Society submitted that this was the third occasion when the petitioner has come before this court with the exact same prayer regarding the appointment of a Court Observer to conduct the elections. It was pointed out that the first order was dated 3rd March 2021 when the petitioner had sought leave to withdraw the writ petition. The second order is dated 23rd March 2021 when again the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition. In the present case despite the fact that the application for appointment of an observer is to be heard by the Trial Court, the petitioner has come before this court. The counsel for the respondent also submitted before the court that the petitioner had initially filed the suit without impleading the election committee and subsequently the petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the committee which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 15th July 2021. It was also noted that the Election Commission did not have any of the previous members and therefore the old observations were irrelevant.
CM468 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: July 22 2021 + CM468 2021 SUNIL KUMAR VAID .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Achin Mittal Advocate Versus GENERAL MOHYAL SABHA& ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Devadutta Kamat Senior Advocate with Mr. Hardhik Luthra Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Archit Krishna Advocate for Mr.Jawahar Raja ASC(C) GNCTD for Respondent No.2 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Naagar Advocate for Respondents No.3 to 5 CORAM: HON BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON O R D E RASHA MENON J.CM APPL. 21657 20211. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM468 2021 CM APPL. 21658 20211. This petition has been filed by the plaintiff before the learned Trial CM468 2021 Court being aggrieved by the order dated 15th July 2021 passed in CS No. 773 2020. 2. Mr. Achin Mittal learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Trial Court has fixed the case for hearing on 26th July 2021 despite having moved an early hearing application ignoring the plea of the petitioner plaintiff that the ballot papers could be distributed on that day. The learned counsel has relied on the report submitted by an earlier Election Observer on 16th September 2015where an observation had been made that the ballot papers were not properly issued by the then Election Committee and the same situation is likely to prevail now. The learned counsel submitted that this is the reason why an application had been moved seeking appointment of an Election Observer but the learned Trial Court did not look into the matter in the right perspective. Hence it was prayed that the order dated 15th July 2021 be set aside and this Court appoint a Court Observer to supervise monitor and conduct the elections of the Respondent No.1 Society. 3. Mr. Devadutta Kamat learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 Society has submitted that this was the third occasion when the petitioner plaintiff has come before this court with the same prayer i.e. for appointment of a Court Observer to conduct the elections. The first order was dated 3rd March 2021when the petitioner plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the writ petition. The second one is dated 23rd March 2021when once again the petitioner plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the petition. Again despite the fact that the application for appointment of an Observer is to be heard CM468 2021 by the learned Trial Court the petitioner plaintiff has come before this court. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that vide the impugned order the learned Trial Court had also fixed for consideration an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint moved by the respondent No.1 who is the defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court. The learned Senior Counsel urged that the present petition be dismissed with heavy costs. 4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna learned Senior Counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5 who are the members of the Election Committee as also for the Election Committee has submitted that the petitioner plaintiff had initially filed the suit without impleading the Election Committee. Subsequently the petitioner plaintiff moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the Committee which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 15th July 2021. They have yet to reply to the suit as also to the application for appointment of Election Observer by the court. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the present Election Committee did not have any of the old members and therefore previous observations were irrelevant. Moreover the members of the Election Committee namely Rzd. K.K. BaliDr. Subhash Duttaand Brig. Arun Bali(respondent No. 5) are highly respectable persons who were retired from important positions in the Army and Academics. Learned Senior Counsel also prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the petition this Court finds absolutely no merit in the same. An application for early CM468 2021 hearing had been moved by the petitioner plaintiff before the learned Trial Court who in view of the various submissions made allowed that application and preponed the date of hearing from 31st July 2021 to 26th July 2021. The learned Trial Court also moved expeditiously to allow the application moved by the petitioner plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the Election Committee of the Society which would only facilitate the passing of an appropriate order on the application for appointment of Observer. 6. Vide the impugned order this very application for appointment of an Election Observer has been fixed on 26th July 2021. Despite this the petitioner plaintiff has chosen to move this Court with exactly the same prayer. Obviously this appears to be nothing short of “forum shopping”. The approach of the petitioner plaintiff in repeatedly moving this Court and withdrawing the petitions with permission to move similar applications before the learned Trial Court reflects the conduct of the petitioner in very poor light. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application with costs of Rs.5 000 to be deposited by the petitioner plaintiff in the Lawyers’ Welfare Fund Tis Hazari Courts Delhi. 8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. JUDGE JULY 22 2021 pkb s 