'Cannot Entertain Matter Involving False Statements': Bombay High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 1 Lakh On Party For Misusing Judicial Process
The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition containing false statements and suppression of material facts cannot be entertained on merits and must be dismissed at the threshold, as such conduct amounts to misuse of the judicial process. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and founded on fairness, equity and full disclosure, and that a litigant approaching the Court...
The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition containing false statements and suppression of material facts cannot be entertained on merits and must be dismissed at the threshold, as such conduct amounts to misuse of the judicial process. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and founded on fairness, equity and full disclosure, and that a litigant approaching the Court is expected to do so with clean hands.
Justice Amit Borkar was hearing petitions filed by the judgment debtors challenging the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar refusing to condone a delay of more than twelve years in filing a revision against the confirmation of an auction sale of their mortgaged properties. The petitioners asserted that they became aware of the auction sale only in November 2020, and that the delay therefore deserved to be condoned. The respondents, including the Bank and the auction purchasers, pointed out that the petitioners had applied for account extracts in September 2011 and had acknowledged receipt of documents reflecting the auction proceeds. They also relied on a letter written by the petitioners in April 2015, expressly acknowledging the auction. This demonstrated that the petitioners' assertion of late knowledge was false.
The Court noted that the material on record reveals that on 16 September 2011, the petitioners applied to the Bank seeking copies of account extracts. On the same day, the Bank furnished the copies. The petitioners acknowledged receipt of this extract. This acknowledgement leaves no doubt that they were aware of the auction at least on 16 September 2011. Further, in a letter dated 16 April 2015 written by petitioner No. 1, it has been clearly stated that the Bank had auctioned the mortgaged property.
Hence, the Court found that the petitioners had consciously made false statements on oath despite documentary evidence to the contrary. It held that no litigant has a right to seek extraordinary relief under Article 226 while suppressing material facts or presenting falsehoods. The conduct of the petitioners was held to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
“… the explanation offered by the petitioner that he became aware of the auction only in 2020 is not only unacceptable, but it shows a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. No litigant has a right to suppress facts and then seek relief. When the foundation of the plea itself is false, the entire case built on it falls,” the Court observed.
The Court stressed that judicial time is a public resource and a person who speaks untruth on oath loses the right to claim extraordinary relief. If the conduct of the petitioner itself is tainted by falsehood, no relief can be granted. It observed:
“When a litigant hides material facts or knowingly makes a false statement to secure a favourable order, the Court cannot proceed to examine the merits of the case. The writ jurisdiction is extraordinary. It is meant to ensure justice. It cannot be used to gain advantage through deception.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. It further imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioners so that litigants act responsibly and approach the Court only with true and complete facts.
Case Title: Ramrao Tukaram Patil & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO.7660 OF 2021]