Ram Kumar And Another vs Unknown on 29 March, 2012

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Kumar And Another vs Unknown on 29 March, 2012

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 20.12.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on account of non-compliance of the order passed by the court below regarding deposit of cost imposed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if there is some delay in deposit of cost, the same may be condoned and the appeal of the petitioners be restored and they be heard on merits. For default, the petitioners can be further burdened with cost.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, not for the reason that there was some default/delay in deposit of cost imposed by the court for allowing the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, rather, the same is for the reason that the petitioners had mis-stated the facts before the court below and also concealed certain facts from this court when they had earlier approached this court.

Civil Revision No. 1966 of 2012 [2]

4. It is a case in which the petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 28.7.2010 dismissing their suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The appeal before the learned lower appellate court was belated by 185 days. Along with the appeal, an application was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The learned lower appellate court vide order dated 11.11.2011, considering the pleas raised by the petitioners, condoned the delay subject to deposit of ` 8,000/- as cost with District Legal Services Authority, Bhiwani. It was only taking a compassionate view of the matter, otherwise the delay had not been properly explained. Relevant paragraph of the order is extracted below:

"9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that there is a considerable delay in filing the appeal. The delay has not been attributed to the counsel alone but the Post and Telegraph Department also. No action has been taken against the counsel for any laxity on his part. The story propounded in the application is implausible and it does not inspire confidence. The lackadaisical attitude of a party cannot be allowed to play havoc with the law of limitation but at the same time the appeal should be heard on merits. Consequently, application is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 8,000/- as cost to the District Legal Services Authority, Bhiwani. Now to come up on 20.12.2011 for payment of cost."

5. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 20.12.2011, the petitioners did not deposit the cost. Their counsel appeared before the court below and stated that the petitioners/appellants before the court below, had filed a revision petition in this court. As the counsel did not have concrete information regarding date of hearing or any order by this court, the appeal was dismissed on account of non-deposit of cost. The relevant part of the order is extracted below:

"Cost imposed vide order dated 11.11.2011 has not been deposited. It is stated that the appellants have filed revision petition in the Hon'ble High Court. It is stated that he had received merely the information that revision petition has been Civil Revision No. 1966 of 2012 [3] filed. He is neither aware of date of hearing nor about passing of any stay order by the Hon'ble High Court. In these circumstances, for non -payment of cost, this appeal is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance."

6. It is the aforesaid order, which is impugned in the present petition.

7. The revision petition challenging the order dated 11.11.2011 imposing cost of ` 8,000/- on the petitioners for accepting their application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was impugned by the petitioners before this court by filing Civil Revision No. 1367 of 2012. It was filed in this court only on 1.3.2012. It was listed before the court on 2.3.2012 and was dismissed. The fact that prior to the filing of petition in this court challenging the order dated 11.11.2011, the appeal filed by the petitioners before the learned lower appellate court had, in fact, already been dismissed on account of non-compliance of the order imposing cost, on 20.12.2011 was neither mentioned in Civil Revision No. 1367 of 2012 nor at the time of hearing. It is nothing else but concealment of facts from this court. Not only this, a perusal of the order passed by the learned lower appellate court on 20.12.2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners shows that a mis-statement of fact was made regarding filing of the revision petition in this court, whereas undisputedly the same was filed only on 1.3.2012.

8. In Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5795-5796 of 2009, decided on 12.5.2011, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while declining relief to the petitioners, who did not approach the court with clean hands, opined as under:

"16. In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plea of inadvertent mistake put forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not merit acceptance. Each of the appellants consciously made a Civil Revision No. 1966 of 2012 [4] statement that it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations. Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to the category of innocent, illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not conversant with the relevant statutory provisions and the court process. The very fact that each of the appellants had submitted application in terms of Regulation 7 and made itself available for inspection by the team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get recognition only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act and the Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not granted recognition to them. Notwithstanding this, they made bold statement that they had been granted recognition by the competent authority and thereby succeeded in persuading this Court to entertain the special leave petitions and pass interim orders. The minimum, which can be said about the appellants is that they have not approached the Court with clean hands and succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statement. Therefore, they are not entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. This view finds support from plethora of precedents. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261 and large number of other cases, this Court denied relief to the petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court revoked the leave granted to the appellant and observed:

"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with Civil Revision No. 1966 of 2012 [5] applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked."

In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (supra), the Court noted that the appellant had concealed the fact that the award could not be made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court and observed:

"...... Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter-affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Civil Revision No. 1966 of 2012 [6] Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petitions."

In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and observed:

"For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahinsa" (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre- Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not Civil Revision No. 1966 of 2012 [7] entitled to any relief, interim or final."

9. In the present case, considering the fact, where the petitioners had firstly mis-stated before the learned court below on 20.12.2011 stating that they had challenged the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the learned court below imposing cost before this court by filing a revision petition in this court, which had not been filed by that date as the same was filed on 1.3.2012, further in the revision petition filed in this court challenging the order dated 11.11.2011, the fact that the appeal had already been dismissed on 20.12.2011 on account of non-deposit of cost had been concealed from this court. Considering the conduct of the petitioners, where they had tried to over-reach the court, in my opinion, they do not deserve any relief from the court.

10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.3.2012 mk ( Refer to Reporter )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court