Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukund Pohankae vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
1 RP-1084-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 10 th OF JULY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1084 of 2025
MUKUND POHANKAE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Sunil Kherdikar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Dayaram Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1
to 3/State.
Shri Vipin Yadav - Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19694 of 2025 whereby the writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.3/Tehsildar to consider and decide the pending application of the writ petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Collector within 30 days giving audience to all the affected parties. It was further directed that till a decision is taken by the respondent no.3, no third party right be created with respect to property in question.
2. After disposal of the writ petition, on the very next date i.e. 21.06.2024, a general notice was published on Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper, Jabalpur edition 22.06.2025 that Khasra Nos. 9/1, 10/1, 23/1, 168/1A and 182 is ancestral property of the respondent no.4/original writ petitioner and the High Court had directed that no third party right be created in the above land till pendency of the application Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 2 RP-1084-2025 before the Tehsildar. It is argued that there is a material suppression of facts in the writ petition submitted on affidavit making false statements and assertions which attract the contempt proceedings and initiation of proceeding of perjury against the respondent No.4 i.e. the original writ petitioner.
3. It is argued that the original writ petitioner i.e. the respondent No.4 herein had initially filed a civil suit bearing No.500-A/1994 seeking declaration and permanent injunction with respect to suit property mentioned in Schedule 1, 2 & 3 of the plaint which was decided vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2000 declaring that the plaintiff has 1/3rd share in the suit property mentioned in the schedule. If the schedule as well as judgment and decree dated 10.07.2000 are seen, then it is seen that Khasra Nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182 are not part of the Schedule, however, the respondent No.4 in paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the writ petition has falsely averred that above khasra numbers were owned by her father and these lands were affected by ceiling proceedings and that she has been granted 1/3rd share in Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182. It is further mentioned in para 5.4 of the writ petition that challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2000, a first appeal was preferred being F.A.No.678/2000 which was finally decided on 15.05.2017 holding that the respondent no.4 has 1/3rd share of the above property. However, it is deliberately not disclosing before this Court that in First Appeal it was observed that respondent no.4 can later on filed a suit for partition of her share as per the Rules and based upon the said observations, the respondent no.4 has filed a civil suit being RCS/A-969 of 2017 for partition, possession and permanent injunction of the suit property attached with Scheduled nos.1, 2 & 3 to the plaint and further sought declaration that she be allowed to file a separate proceedings before the revenue court for possession and partition of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 3 RP-1084-2025 suit properties. The proceedings of the civil suit have been stayed by an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.338 of 2025. Notice whereof was duly served upon the respondent no.4 i.e. original writ petitioner on 07.05.2025 as it is evident from the postal track report. The aforesaid facts were not brought to the notice of this Court and not even mentioned in the writ petition. The writ petitioner has also suppressed the fact that she has filed an amendment application in pending Civil Suit No.969 of 2017 for adding Khasra Nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2025. Instead of challenging rejection of the amendment application, the respondent No.4 has filed another Civil Suit No.547 of 2025 seeking 1/2 share in Khasra Nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182, wherein, he has also not disclosed filing of the earlier Civil Suit No.969 of 2017, which is still pending adjudication. This goes to show that there were material suppression of facts on the part of the respondent no.4 being the original writ petitioner in the writ petition and she has mislead the Court and obtained an order with respect to a direction being issued to consider and decide the pending application by the respondent No.3 taking note of the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Collector within 30 days. It is further pointed out that newspaper publication shows mentioning of Khasra Nos.9/1, 10/1, 23/1, 168/1A and 182 which are not part of the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Collector. Under these circumstances, an attempt has been made to play fraud not only with the Revisionist herein but also with the Court by not disclosing the material facts and obtaining an order. Therefore, this review petition has been filed.
4. On notice being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the respondent No.4 pointing out the fact that there is no suppression of facts, rather it is only a direction which was sought to consider and decide the pending Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 4 RP-1084-2025 application before the Tehsildar taking note of the order passed by the Collector dated 07.02.2025. The Court has observed that opportunity of hearing should be granted to all the affected parties, therefore, virtually no prejudice will be caused to the revisionist. There is no order on merits by this Court, therefore, it cannot said that there is any material suppression of facts on the part of the writ petitioner in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has tried to justify his stand by pointing out the fact that he has sought no order on merits in the writ petition, therefore, it cannot be said there is any suppression of facts on the part of the writ petitioner. Several other grounds are raised in the reply to substantiate his argument that there is no material suppression on the part of the writ petitioner.
5. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. If the pleadings of the writ petition are seen, then there is a mentioning of Khasra Nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182 situated at Mouza Purva Jabalpur and further prayer is made to issue a mandamus restraining the respondent No.4/revisionist herein to alienate the property in question. However, the writ petition was disposed off in term of the submissions made in the writ petition with a further direction to the Tehsildar to consider the order passed by the Collector on 07.02.2025. The fact remains that if the order passed in Civil Suit No.500- A/1994 is seen which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction over the suit property mentioned in Schedule 1 which was decided on 10.07.2000, then the plaintiff was declared to be 1/3rd share holder in the suit property. The schedule appended does not reflect mentioning of Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182, but despite of the same, it is mentioned in the writ petition that petitioner's father was owner of the land bearing above khasra numbers which were affected by ceiling proceedings. A first appeal was also filed against the said judgment and decree being F.A.No.678 of 2000, which was decided on Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 5 RP-1084-2025 15.05.2017 making an observation that present respondent no.4 can later on file a civil suit seeking partition of her share. Therefore, virtually there is no declaration or partition with respect to Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182 being not part of the civil proceedings. Thereafter, she again filed a civil suit being RCS/A- 969 of 2017 seeking partition, possession and permanent injunction of the suit property attached along with application seeking permission to file a separate proceedings before the revenue court for possession and partition of the suit properties mentioned in Scheduled 2 & 3 of the plaint. The said proceedings of the Civil Suit were stayed vide order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Civil Revision No.338 of 2025. Thereafter an amendment application was filed in pending Civil Suit No. RCS/A-969 of 2017 for adding Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182 which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2025. Instead of challenging the said rejection of the application for amendment, fresh civil suit has been filed being Civil Suit No.547 of 2025 seeking 1/ 2 share in Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182 owned by the revisionist. If the contents of the writ petition are seen, then there was no mentioning of the aforesaid proceedings drawn between the parties and outrightly during the course of arguments, a relief was sought to direct the Tehsildar to decide the application for mutation taking note of the order passed by the Collector dated 07.02.2025. The fact remains that the respondent No.4/writ petitioner has never obtained any share in the property in question, coupled with the fact that the civil suit instituted by the respondent no.4 herein is still pending consideration, no such relief directing the authorities to consider and decide the application for mutation can be granted as correct facts were not brought to the notice of this court. Considering the submissions made before this Court and relying upon the arguments advanced by the counsel, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 6 RP-1084-2025 Court had directed that the authority to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner. This is a clear case of suppression of material information from this Court for obtaining an order. Apart from the aforesaid, after obtaining an order from the Court, there is a newspaper publication made by the writ petitioner, again making a false submission with respect to direction issued by the Court with respect to survey numbers mentioned in the newspaper. The Court had never directed for non-creation of third party interest for the said khasra numbers mentioned in the newspaper. Rather, owing to the misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner before this Court, the order was got obtained, which is per se illegal.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah vs Union of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that suppression must be of 'material' fact. It was observed :
"10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy. Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 :
(2007) 5 Scale 357].) A person who has a grievance against a State, a forum must be provided for redressal thereof. (See Hatton v. United Kingdom [15 BHRC 259]. For reference see also Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.
Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)
11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the question.
12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 7 RP-1084-2025 relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under:
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (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.
2. 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 entitled to any relief, interim or final.
3. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] this Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558) "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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 8 RP-1084-2025 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."
4. In Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015] 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 : AIR 1991 SC 1726] 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 9 RP-1084-2025 (CA)] , and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case [(2007) 8 SCC 449] , 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 distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K. Jayaram and others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others decided on 08.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No.7550-7553 of 2021 has held as under:
"15. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, it was held thus:-
"34. 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. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, 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.
35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs.- (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) in the following words: (KB p. 514) "...... it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts--it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it--the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
10 RP-1084-2025 has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement."
(emphasis supplied)
36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done." The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.
37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) "... Where an ex parte application has been made to his Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, he Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit."
(emphasis supplied)
38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts".
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 11 RP-1084-2025
39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. (supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court."
16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subjec tmatter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531 has held as under:-
"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 [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 12 RP-1084-2025 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 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 [(2010) 14 SCC 38] 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 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."
Any fact which goes to the root of the subject matter is a material fact and suppression of the same would amount to suppression of material fact. Where the party has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 13 RP-1084-2025 material facts, then this Court can refuse to entertain its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and the equitable relief which can be granted to the petitioner can be refused in terms of the settled legal proposition of law.
11. Normally the courts have heavily relied upon the arguments advanced by the counsels being officers of the court. It is not expected that they should make any such argument before the court that will amount to suppression of facts and misleading the court, but in the present case, the said attempt was made by the counsel for the writ petitioner, as neither the pleadings in the petition nor the arguments advanced before the court had disclosed the factum of filing of serious of civil litigation before the competent civil courts with respect to properties in question. Under these circumstances, the order passed by this Court, simplicitor directing to decide the application of the writ petitioner dated 20.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.19694 of 2025 is recalled. The review petition stands allowed and disposed off.
12. W.P.No.19694 of 2025 is taken up for consideration.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the W.P.No.19694 of 2025 is full of suppression of material facts is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) to be deposited and to be borne by the writ petitioner/respondent no.4 herein in the account of M.P. High Court Bar Association (SB A/C No.519302010000549, IFS CODE:UBIN0551937, Union Bank of India, State Bar Council, High Court Branch, Jabalpur) within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
14. A copy of this order be placed in the records of W.P.No.19694 of 2025.
15. An application has been filed seeking a direction for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/379 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854 14 RP-1084-2025 Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhiya, 2023 against the respondent no.4 for misleading the Court.
16. This Court by a detailed order has already observed that there is a material suppression of the facts on the part of the original writ petitioner/respondent no.4 herein, coupled with the fact that even in the arguments the said facts regarding series of civil litigation filed between the parties and the said survey numbers being not a part of the civil litigation was not brought to the notice of this Court. The said submissions have been placed before the Court accompanied by an affidavit filed by the original writ petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to issue notice of the said application to the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 that as to why he should not be held guilty of perjury and playing fraud and misrepresenting before this Court. Under these circumstances, let notice be issued to the respondent no.4 herein that why the proceedings 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/379 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhiya, 2023 be not initiated against him. The said notice be made returnable within four weeks.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 30-07-2025 10:58:51