Non-Disclosure Of Past & Present Litigations Concerning Dispute Amounts To Suppression Of Material Facts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that non-disclosure of details of past and pending litigation concerning the subject-matter of the dispute would amount to material suppression of facts, which would disentitle a litigant from discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.The Court also reiterated that while approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is imperative that the petitioner must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything.While noting that jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary, a Bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari has observed that a litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. The Bench has observed that if some vital or relevant material is withheld by the litigant to gain advantage over the other side, the litigant would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.In the present case, the appellants did not disclose the filing of a suit and its dismissal and also the dismissal of the appeal against the judgment of the civil court by the High Court.Considering the same, the Bench observed that the appellants have to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts."They have not come to the court with clean hands and they have also abused the process of law. Therefore, they are not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief", the Bench observed The Bench observed that is clear that the appellants have suppressed these material facts which are relevant for deciding the question involved in the writ petitions.The Bench stated that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge for the following reasons: In order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter.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"...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 subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge"According to the Court, in cases where according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, the same has to be mandatorily stated in their pleadings.The observations have been made by the Bench in appeals filed challenging Karnataka High Court's 2013 order in review petition filed by appellants pursuant to the liberty granted by this top Court. However, the High Court declined to review its earlier order.The appellants herein are the sons of one M. Krishna Reddy and had filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka for cancellation of allotment at two sites allotted in favour of two respondents and for certain other reliefs.The land in question, a part of which was owner by appellant's father was notified for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority. The Notification for acquisition in respect of the entire 5 acres 9 guntas had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority and possession of the land had been been. The contention of the appellants is that their father,as the owner of 1 acre 26 guntas of land and 08 guntas of land had not been acquired and compensation had not been paid in respect of this land. The Apex Court has observed that according to records produced by the BDA would disclose that 08 guntas of land is kharab-B land. Therefore, there is no question of payment of compensation in respect of this land.The appellants also claimed enhanced compensation also for 1 acre 18 guntas of land and they have raised this issue at a highly belated stage after lapse of about 34 years.The Bench noted that Identical contentions were raised by the appellants in its suit, the said suit was dismissed and the judgment of the civil court was confirmed by the High Court. The High Court however noted that the materials placed on record clearly indicated that the entire extent of land had been acquired by the BDA for public purposes and the compensation had been paid thereon. Further, it was not in dispute that the plaintiff's father had...

Non-Disclosure Of Past & Present Litigations Concerning Dispute Amounts To Suppression Of Material Facts : Supreme Court

Srishti Ojha

Tags