Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratap Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2019 (NOC) 284 (MPG), AIRONLINE 2019 MP 412 (2019) 3 MPLJ 40, (2019) 3 MPLJ 40
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MP No.105/2019
Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another
Gwalior, Dated :16/01/2019
Shri U.K. Bohare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Jain, Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 12/12/2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.6/2018, thereby affirming the order dated 13/7/2018 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Karera, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.165A/2017, by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.
The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner has filed a suit for grant of lease as well as permanent injunction against the respondents. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No.16203/2017, seeking the following reliefs:-
**1- izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks vkns'k@funsZ'k fn;k tk;s fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dks xzke xM+kSy rglhy ujoj ds vkjkth losZ uEcj 37 jdck 1- 06 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ls fcuk dkuwuh izfdz;k viuk;s csn[ky u fd;k tk;sA 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another 2- ;kfpdkdrkZ vkjkth losZ uEcj 37 dh Hkwfe ij o"kZ 1984 ls d``f"k dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk vkonsd dh Hkwfe ls mDr losZ uEcj yxk gqvk gSA blfy;s vkjkth losZ uEcj 37 dk iV~+Vk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fgr esa fd;k tk;sA 3- vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuq:i mfpr gks og ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fgr esa tkjh dh tk;sA 4- ;kfpdkdrkZ dks eqdnesa dk gtkZ [kpkZ Hkh izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k ls fnyk;k tk;s vkSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tk;s rks ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh vfrd``ik gksxhA** Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition, this Court passed the order dated 31/10/2017, which is as follows:-
"Shri U.K. Bohre, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned
Government Advocate, for the
respondents/State.
After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file civil suit seeking declaration of title over the land in question.
Prayer is allowed.
Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty."3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed a civil suit against respondents claiming that he is in possession of the land in dispute and the High Court in Writ Petition No.16203/2017 has passed the above-mentioned order and the civil suit is being filed in compliance of the said order.
Petitioner also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court by order dated 13/7/2018 passed in Civil Suit No.165A/2017 rejected the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1and 2 CPC. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioner filed civil appeal, which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.6/2018, which has been dismissed by the Second Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri by order dated 13/12/2018.
Challenging the order passed by the courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute and it is well established principle of law that even an encroacher cannot be dispossessed without following due procedure of law and, therefore, the courts below have committed material illegality by rejecting his application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
4THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
Before considering the facts of the present case, it is suffice to mention that this case is a glaring example of suppression of material facts, misleading the Court and misuse of lawful authority of the Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, such type of cases are liable to be dealt with, with all firmness.
The present case has an exchequered history, which has been suppressed by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit seeking declaration of his title on the ground that he is in possession of the land in dispute, i.e. survey no.37 area 1.06 hectare situated in village Gadoli, Tahsil Narvar, District Shivpuri. The said civil suit was registered as CS No.39A/2013 and the same was dismissed by the Civil Court by judgment and decree dated 23/6/2015. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23/6/2015 passed by the trial court, the petitioner filed a Civil Appeal, which was registered as CA No.18A/2015. The said Civil Appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17/12/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri with the following observations:-
5THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another **19- oknh lk{; ls xzke xM+kSyh] rglhy ujoj] ftyk f'koiqjh fLFkr fookfnr vkjkth dz- 37 jdok 1-06 gSDVs;j ij viuk LokfeRo ,oa vf/kiR; izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA vr% mijksDr foospuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa vkKkfIr fnukad 23-06-2015 dh iqf"V djrs gq;s vihykFkhZ@ oknh }kjk izLrqr ;g vihy lO;; fujLr dh tkrh gSA** Thus, it is clear that the courts below had given a specific finding that the petitioner has failed to prove his title as well as possession over the land in dispute, i.e. survey no.37 area 1.06 hectare, situated in village Gadoli, Tahsil Narvar, District Shivpuri.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17/12/2015, the petitioner filed a second appeal before this Court, which was registered as SA No.78/2016. This Court by order dated 22/8/2016 dismissed the said second appeal by holding that no substantial question of law arises in the said appeal. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that against the order dated 22/8/2016 passed in SA No.78/2016, the petitioner had also filed a review petition before this Court, which was also dismissed.
As the present civil suit has been filed relying upon the order dated 31/10/2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16203/2017, therefore, the record of writ petition 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another No.16203/2017 was called. I have gone through the record of the said writ petition. Writ Petition No.16203/2017 was filed on 6/10/2017, i.e. after the dismissal of Second Appeal No.78/2016. Although the said writ petition was filed with respect of survey no.37 area 1.06 hectare situated in village Gadoli, Tahsil Narvar, District Shivpuri seeking protection of his possession, however, there is no whisper about dismissal of the civil suit as well as disposal of the first appeal, second appeal and the review petition filed by the petitioner in respect of the same land. Thus, it is clear that writ petition No.16203/2017 was filed by suppressing the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by holding that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in dispute, i.e. survey no.37 area 1.06 hectare situated in village Gadoli, Tahsil Narvar, District Shivpuri, but the said writ petition was filed claiming that the petitioner is in possession of the said land. As the petitioner had neither filed any document to show dismissal of his civil suit upto the High Court nor he had made any averment in the pleadings, therefore, considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court by order dated 31/10/2017 passed in Writ Petition No.16203/2017 had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another civil suit for declaration of title over the land in question.
However, it is not out of place to mention here that the suit for declaration of title was already dismissed upto the stage of second appeal. It appears that taking advantage of the order dated 31/10/2017 passed by this Court in writ petition No.16203/2017, in which the material documents were suppressed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a civil suit with the following opening paragraph and paragraph 17, which read as under:-
**1- ;g fd] oknh us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa vkosnu fnukad 21- 09-2017 ¼bDdhl flrEcj nks gtkj lRrjg½ ds fo:) ;kfpdk izLrqr dh tks izdj.k 16203@2017 MCY;w-ih- izrki flg xqtZj cuke e0iz0 'kklu vkfn ds uke ls ntZ gqbZA mDr ;kfpdk dh lquokbZ eku- mPp U;k;ky; esa fnukad 31-10-2017 ¼bDdrhl vDVwcj nks gtkj lRrjg½ dks dh rFkk oknh }kjk izLrqr ;kfpdk dk fujkdj.k fd;k rFkk oknh dks ;g vkns'k fn;k fd **After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file civil suit seeking declaration of title over the land in question.Prayer is allowed. ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fnukad 31-10-2017 nkos ds lkFk layXu gSA 17- ;g fd] oknh us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk izLrqr dh ftldh lquokbZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 31-10-2017 ¼bDdrhl vDVwcj nks gtkj lRrjg½ dks dh vkSj oknh dks nkok izLrqr djus dh Lora=rk nhA oknh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another vkns'k fnukad 31-10-2017 ¼bDdrhl vDVwcj nks gtkj lRrjg½ ds ikyu esa Jheku th ds le{k le; lhek esa nkok izLrqr dj jgk gSA** The copy of the plaint has also been annexed as Annexure P/2. In the entire plaint there is no whisper of dismissal of earlier civil suit upto the stage of second appeal.
On the contrary, it is mentioned that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, he is entitled to get a lease deed in his favour and it was also prayed that a mandatory injunction may be issued against respondents restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over survey no.37 area 1.06 hectare situated in village Gadoli, Tahsil Narvar, District Shivpuri. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has also filed the civil suit by suppressing the material fact of dismissal of his earlier civil suit. As his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC as well as his appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) CPC has been dismissed, therefore, the present petition has been filed challenging both the orders. In the present petition also neither the petitioner has made any pleading with regard to the dismissal of his earlier suit upto the stage of second appeal nor he has filed any document to show dismissal of his previous suit. Thus, it is clear that not only the petitioner had obtained 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another the order dated 31/10/2017 in writ petition No.16203/2017 by suppressing the material facts, but he has also filed the present suit by suppressing the material fact of dismissal of his earlier suit upto the stage of second appeal and has also suppressed the material fact in the present petition, for the obvious reason that in the earlier round of litigation a finding has already been given to the effect that the petitioner has failed to prove that he is in possession of the land in dispute.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that although the earlier suit filed by the petitioner, seeking declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession has been rejected, but an incorrect finding of fact was recorded that the petitioner is not in actual possession of the land in dispute, whereas he is in actual possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the earlier petition was filed seeking relief on the basis of actual possession, and there was no malice on the part of the petitioner, and he was not required to disclose the fact of dismissal of his suit upto the stage of Second Appeal.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. The submission cannot be accepted as the same is misconceived and not in accordance with law. Once, the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the petitioner had lost 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another upto the stage of Second Appeal and the previous suit was also between the same parties, the subject matter was also the same, the relief was claimed on the basis of possession, and a finding was recorded that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit property, then the subsequent proceedings between the same parties, in respect of the same subject matter would be barred by the principle of Res Judicata/Constructive Res Judicata. Therefore, in order to overcome the hurdle of Statutory bar, the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact of dismissal of the previous suit, so as to obtain a favourable order by playing fraud on the Court. It is true that every suppression of fact may not be crucial, but where the suppression of fact goes to the root of the dispute and the subsequent petition could not have been entertained, then it cannot be said that the suppression of fact was immaterial.
Thus, it is held that there was a conscious and deliberate suppression of fact, with a sole intention to obtain favourable order, by playing fraud on the Court.
The Supreme Court in the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166 has held as under :
"13. As a general rule, suppression of a 11 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case..........................."
The Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under :
"4. In Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 ] the Court held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.
5. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka [(1991) 3 SCC 261] the Court denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed: (SCC p. 263, para 2) "2. ... 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 Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full 12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another 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."
6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
7. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [(2007) 8 SCC 449] it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA)], and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case, SCC p. 462, para 35) In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are 13 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.
8. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 4 SCC 221] the Court held that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party. It confers discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the Supreme Court a regular court of appeal or a court of error. This Court only intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require such intervention.
9. In Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India [(2008) 2 SCC 326] the Court held that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court will non- suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct.
10. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayashree v.
Bhagwandas S. Patel]."
The Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society 14 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531 has held as under :
"Suppression of fact
42. While dealing with the conduct of the parties, we may also notice the submission of the learned counsel for Respondent 1 to the effect that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of a material fact from this Court, namely, the rejection on 2-5-2003 of the first application for extension of time filed by the trustees and the finality attached to it. These facts have not been clearly disclosed to this Court by the petitioners. It was submitted that in view of the suppression, special leave to appeal should not be granted to the petitioners.
43. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no material facts have been withheld from this Court. It was submitted that while the order dated 2-5-2003 was undoubtedly not filed, its existence was not material in view of subsequent developments that had taken place. We cannot agree.
44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows: (AIR p. 1560, para 9) "9. ... It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any 15 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with 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. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent."
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC p. 51, para 21) "21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case."
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5- 2003, en passant, in the order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It 16 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another is not for the court to look into every word of the pleadings, documents and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come upfront and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it to the court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must suffer the consequence thereof."
The Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal v.
Ugrasen, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 557 has held as under:
"48. The present appellants had also not disclosed that land allotted to them falls in commercial area. When a person approaches a court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. "Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice." Who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim "Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand at SCC p. 249, para 9.)
49. Similarly, in Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra this Court observed as under:
(SCC p. 140, para 10) "10. ... The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point.
... the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one 17 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another and the same. ... The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising ... any of their discretionary powers."
(emphasis added)
50. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. and Sabia Khan v. State of U.P. this Court held that filing a totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts".
51. In Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai, S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn.) this Court held that whenever the court comes to the conclusion that the process of the court is being abused, the court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse relief to the party. This rule has been evolved out of need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the court by deceiving it."
At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner, faced with this awkward position, prayed for withdrawal of this petition.
The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the facts that not only the present petition has been filed by suppressing the material facts, but earlier also writ petition No.16203/2017 was filed before this Court by suppressing the material facts and the petitioner had succeeded in getting an order from this Court 18 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another and on the basis of the said order, the petitioner has filed a civil suit again by suppressing the fact of dismissal of his earlier civil suit upto the stage of second appeal. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that this petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Messer Holdings Ltd. v. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia reported in (2016) 11 SCC 484, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"49. This case should also serve as proof of the abuse of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 by the rich and powerful in the name of a "fight for justice" at each and every interlocutory step of a suit. Enormous amount of judicial time of this Court and two High Courts was spent on this litigation. Most of it is avoidable and could have been well spent on more deserving cases.
50. This Court in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi observed at para 54: (SCC p. 268) "54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter-affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee, etc."
51. We therefore, deem it appropriate to impose exemplary costs quantified at Rs 25,00,000 (Rupees twenty-five lakhs only) to be paid by each of the three parties i.e. GGL, MGG 19 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.105/2019 Pratap Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and another and the Ruias. The said amount is to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority as compensation for the loss of judicial time of this country and the same may be utilised by the National Legal Services Authority to fund poor litigants to pursue their claims before this Court in deserving cases."
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts with a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs Only). The cost be deposited in the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today, otherwise, the Principal Registrar of this Court shall proceed in accordance with law for recovery of the said cost.
It is not clear that whether the petitioner himself had prompted his legal adviser to suppress the material facts or he has become the victim of deliberate incorrect, illegal advice. If the petitioner feels that he was given illegal advice, then not only he shall be free to take necessary action for the recovery of cost from his legal adviser, but he shall also be free to take up the matter before the Bar Council.
With aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2019.01.18 14:28:54 +05'30'