Rs 50,000 cost imposed on petitioners for suppression of facts
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Sept 22: Stating that a litigant who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has imposed Rs 50,000 cost on three petitioners for suppression of facts. Further, the High Court has closed the proceedings in the contempt petition against the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) as the petitioners played fraud with the court.
Click Here To Join Daily Excelsior on WhatsApp And Get Latest News
The case before the Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal was that in a civil suit between predecessor in interest of the petitioners (Satpal Sharma of Channi Himmat, Ishan Sharma of Chand Nagar and Hardev Singh of Maralian R S Pura) against Northern Railways regarding land near Railway Station Jammu, Sub-Judge Jammu held the plaintiffs as the owner in possession of land in question.
The decree dated 11.11.2008 was challenged before the court of Additional District Judge by way of an appeal by the Railways and the petitioners also filed application for becoming the party respondents. The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by Sub-Judge Jammu. Thereafter, petitioners raised structures over the land.
Following a dispute with the Jammu Development Authority over the land, the petitioners approached the High Court, which vide interim order dated 01.10.2018 granted status quo with regard to land measuring 1 Kanal and 16 Marlas comprising of Survey No. 20 (old), Khata No. 17 (old) and Khewat No. 1 (old).
Thereafter, the petitioners again approached the High Court with the contempt petition mentioning that demolition was carried out by the JDA even after the passing of the status quo order dated 01.10.2018. Even photographs mentioning dates were placed before the High Court to substantiate this.
However, the counsel on behalf of the respondents argued that the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts while filing the instant petition. He drew the attention of the court to the application preferred by one of the petitioners under Section 156 (3) CrPC seeking direction to the Police Station Trikuta Nagar to register an FIR against the officers of JDA and submitted that in the application the petitioner has specifically admitted that the demolition has already taken place on 30.09.2018, which means demolition was carried out prior to the passing of interim order dated 01.10.2018.
After hearing Senior Advocate K S Johal with Advocates Supreet Johal and Radha Sharma for the petitioners and Advocates Monika Thakur, Adarsh Sharma and Atul Verma for the respondents, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “the party invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution must disclose all the material facts since the very basis of writ jurisdiction depends upon disclosure of true, complete and correct facts”, adding “it is also well settled that if a person does not disclose all the facts and is guilty of misleading the court, then the court without adjudicating or touching upon the merits of the case can dismiss the petition”.
“Perusal of record reveals that it was in active knowledge of the petitioners that the demolition has been carried out by the JDA on 30.09.2018 over their land and structure. Despite the admission of the fact, the petitioners chose to file the petition on 01.10.2018, wherein it was projected that the demolition drive is yet to be carried out by the respondents”, High Court said.
Justice Nargal further said, “the whole game plan on part of petitioners was to mislead and portray that the demolition of the property in question is in flagrant violation of the order passed by this court. Thus, it is amply clear that the petitioners have been suppressing material facts from time to time, according to their own convenience to mislead this court in two separate petitions by taking contradictory stands and to get a favourable order which falls within the realm of playing fraud with this court”.
Pointing towards different judgments of the Apex Court, High Court said, “it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final”, adding “the petitioners not only filed petition on false and flimsy grounds by suppressing the material facts but they have also gone to the extent of filing a contempt petition seeking implementation of the interim order dated 01.10.2018”.
“Since the petitioners have not come to this court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts, this court is not inclined to discuss the merits of the case. After analyzing all the material facts on record coupled with the stand of the rival parties and arguments advanced, this court is of the considered view that the instant petition is misconceived, false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed”, Justice Nargal said.
While dismissing the petition, High Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioners to be paid jointly by them within a period of two weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order, which is to be deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund. High Court also dismissed the contempt petition as the interim order was obtained by the petitioners by way of fraud and misrepresentation.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
