Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Singh Arora vs Ms. Raj Kanta on 13 February, 2002
Author: S.S. Nijjar
Bench: S.S. Nijjar
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. Yesterday, the matter was heard at length. I was, prima facie, satisfied that the application for review filed before the Learned Rent Controller seeking setting aside order dated 18.08.2001 was not filed in accordance with law.
2. I have now gone through the entire paper book. A perusal of the order dated 18.8.2001 shows that the revision petitioner concealed the order passed by the Appellate Authority staying further proceedings in the execution. The Learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on 17.4.2001. The respondent filed appeal against the aforesaid order on 15.5.2001. On 16.5.2001, the Appellate Authority stayed the execution proceedings, issued notice in the application for condonation of delay and the appeal for 11.06.2001. On that date, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner appeared in the Appellate Court and the matter was adjourned to 21.8.2001 and the order of stay granted on 16.5.2001 had been extended till 21.08.2001. Yet the revision petitioner filed an application for warrants of possession on 17.7.2001. In this application, it was no where mentioned that the Appellate Authority has already stayed the execution proceedings. Thus by concealing material facts, the "warrants of possession were got issued on 28.7.2001. Thereafter, the possession was taken forcibly on 14.08.2001. Consequently, the respondent was constrained to file an application on 16.8.2001 bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the execution court. This application was allowed by a detailed order passed on 18.08.2001. In the meantime, the stay matter pending in the appeal also came to be decided on 30.8.2001 by the Appellate Authority. On that date, the Court observed that " the mere fact that the appeal has been filed after some delay, is no ground to refuse stay in case, the facts and circumstances justify the same, especially when an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is yet to be decided on merits." The Appellate Authority further ordered that eviction order shall be stayed subject to deposit of arrears of rent in the Court of learned Rent Controller by the next date. It may also be noticed, at this stage, that the order dated 18.8.2001 restoring the possession to the respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 4381 of 2001. It is a matter of record that no interim relief has been granted in the aforesaid Civil Revision. Faced with this situation, the revision petitioner adopted a novel course and sought recall of the very same order before the Learned Rent Controller. This application has been dismissed by order dated 01.02,2002. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Rawal at length, I have also perused the entire paper book and all the orders with great care. A perusal of the facts narrated above, clearly indicates that the revision petitioner has not been candid with this Court. He has, in fact, also not been candid with the executing Court. The orders of stay passed by the Learned Appellate Court, were not brought to the notice of the executing Court while seeking issuance of warrants of possession. By misrepresentation and suppression of material facts the petitioner had obtained waitant of possession of the demised premises. Actual physical possession was taken on 14.08.2001 in execution of the warrant of possession. In such circumstances, this revision petition is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) L.Rs., v. Ja-gannath (dead) by L.Rs., and others, (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 293 (S.C.). In the aforesaid case, Kuldip Singh, J. speaking for the Court, observed as follows"-
"Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.
The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Exhibit B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamount to playing fraud on the Court. We do not agree with the observations-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side than he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.
4. The aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. Having filed the revision petition, challenging the order dated 18.8.2001 in Civil Revision No. 4381 of 2001 and having failed to obtain any interim relief, the petitioner chose a novel method of having the order recalled by the executing Court itself. The executing Court after noticing the behavior of the petitioner throughout the proceedings, dismissed the application. The learned Judge of the Civil Court has meticulously marshalled the facts which have led to the passing of the order dated 18.08.2001, and thereafter till the passing of the order dated 01.02.2002 which is challenged in the present Civil Revision. I am of the considered opinion that such litigants disentitled themselves from any discretionary relief when they fail to disclose to the court all the facts which are necessary for a fair adjudication of the lis. It is not sufficient that the cases filed by these kind of litigants be dismissed, but it is also necessary that the proceedings initia ed by these kinds of litigants are put to an end or/are ended y putting on the record the displeasure of the Court. In such circumstances, the present revision petition is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 10,000/-. It is made clear that the learned Appellate Authority the executing Court or the Court of learned Rent Controller will not hear the petitioner unless and untill the costs are paid.
6. The office is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the Learned Dis trict. Judge, Ludhiana, to be brought to the notice of all the Courts in which the matter herein is to be adjudicated.