JKL High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Party Over Suppression Of Litigation History

The costs came to be imposed by a bench comprising Justices Moksha Khajuria Kazmi while hearing a plea wherein the petitioner had assailed an order dated 12.11.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Kulgam pursuant to which Tehsildar, Kulgam, had been directed to proceed on spot and evict the petitioner from the land.

In his plea the Petitioner had also sought direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to keep hold of the suit property on the premise that the order had been passed in ex parte as the petitioner had not been afforded the reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned order and was thereby against the basic principles of natural justice

Contesting the maintainability of the petition the counsel for respondents Sr Adv Jahangir Iqbal Ganai argued that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed certain material facts as he had not placed on record all the orders passed by trials courts on the applications for interim relief as well as of appeal filed by the petitioner on the same subject.

Mr Ganai further stated that despite the fact that the petitioner had knowledge of his claim having been rejected by the competent court he had approached this court on same facts and had deliberately suppressed the orders passed by the civil courts, on the same set of claim.

While perusing the record the bench noted that this court had allowed an application of interim relief filed by the petitioner and ordered that the operation of the impugned communication/order dated 12.11.2022 shall remain on hold and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in possession of the property if the petitioner have had been in possession thereof on the date of passing of the impugned order.

Deciding the objection of the respondents questioning the maintainability of the plea the bench after taking recourse to the available record observed that it is a clear case of suppression of material facts as the petitioner has patently made a false statement on oath.

Elaborating on concealments made by the petitioner of the court noted that the petitioner has stated in his petition that status quo order was passed by the Court of Munsif Kulgam in favor of the petitioner but he has nowhere stated that the status quo order granted by the Court of Munsiff, Kulgam on November 09, 2011 was vacated after hearing all the parties to the lis with a detailed order on August 04, 2012.

Justice Kazmi further pointed out that the petitioner had also suppressed the fact that he had challenged the order of dismissal passed on August 04, 2012 by way of civil miscellaneous appeal before the Court of Principal District Judge, Kulgam, which was also dismissed on December 27, 2012.

Observing that the petitioner had stated that he had filed subsequent suit challenging the sale deed registered in favor of the private respondents, but the court again expressed its disappointment on his act of suppressing the fact that the application for grant of interim relief of temporary injunction was also dismissed by the Court of Munsiff, Kulgam on June 12, 2016 and subsequently he had challenged that dismissal by way of filing civil miscellaneous appeal before Court of District Judge, Kulgam and the same was pending.

Elucidating that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary the court stated that it was imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must have come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything.

Frowning over the conduct of the counsel for petitioner in conducting the instant matter the court recorded,

"The conduct depicted by the petitioner as also his counsel is deplorable. The court records it very distastefully that the counsel appearing before this Court, despite having represented the petitioners throughout, has concealed the material particulars from the court to gain an undue advantage over the other side so as to obtain the favourable orders from the court of law".

In view of the said conduct the court dismissed the petition as not maintainable and burdened the litigant with a penalty of Rs 1 lakh.

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 12

Coram: Justice Moksha Kazmi Khajuria.

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr PS Ahmad

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. F. A. Bhat, AAG

Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruqaiya Siddique, Adv.

Click Here To Read Order