While observing that court time is not private property and it belongs to every litigant waiting in the corridor of justice, the Bombay High Court has imposed Rs 1 lakh on the litigants who repeated their false plea in the delay condonation application as well as the writ petition.

The petitioners (judgment debtors) challenged the Judgment of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, rejecting their application seeking condonation of a delay of 12 years in filing a revision against the order confirming the sale of their properties.

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed, “Court time is not private property. It belongs to every litigant waiting in the corridor of justice. Every minute spent on a matter built on falsehood results in genuine matters being delayed. Other litigants were waiting for their matters to be taken up. They could not be heard because the Court was required to deal with a case which should not have been filed in the first place.”

“The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The costs shall be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. Proof of payment shall be filed in the Registry within one week thereafter”, it ordered.

Senior Advocate Girish S. Godbole represented the Petitioners while AGP P.G. Sawant represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

In 2005, the petitioners took two separate loans by mortgaging two different properties. In 2007, the Registrar issued two certificates under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. One certificate was for an amount of Rs. 68,08,969, and the other was for Rs 83,47,098. The petitioners failed to pay the dues as per the certificates. The Special Recovery Officer then held an auction of the mortgaged properties. The petitioners alleged that the auction purchaser did not deposit 15% and 85% of the bid amount within the period prescribed under clauses (g) and (h) of Rule 107(11) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961.

According to the petitioners, the non-compliance rendered the auction void. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition, and relying on the liberty granted by the Division Bench, the petitioners filed a revision application under Section 154 of the MCS Act, challenging the auction proceedings and confirmation of sale. The revision was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a delay of more than twelve years. The respondent Bank and the auction purchasers opposed the request. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners filed the writ petition before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the explanation offered by the petitioner that he became aware of the auction only in 2020 was not only unacceptable, but it also showed 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. Courts cannot act on statements which are proved to be untrue by the litigant’s own record”, it stated.

“There is an increasing trend of litigants approaching constitutional courts with incomplete facts or half-truths to secure interim or final relief. This reflects an attempt to gain advantage not through the strength of the case, but through concealment or misrepresentation. Such conduct undermines the dignity of judicial proceedings. It shakes public confidence in the justice delivery system”, the order read.

Noting that the Court will refuse to exercise its jurisdiction when the conduct of a litigant falls short of honest disclosure of material facts, the Bench held that the Court’s process cannot be misused by suppression or deceit. “Thus, the law declared by the Supreme Court is clear. A litigant must approach the Court with clean hands, clear facts, and honest disclosure. Where the conduct of the party itself is doubtful, the Court need not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the petitioners’ plea was based on falsehood. The documents placed on record showed that they knew about the auction in 2011 and again in 2015. Despite this, they stated on oath that they came to know about the auction only in 2020. Finding this statement to be false, the Bench noted that the petitioners repeated the same false plea in the delay condonation application and in the writ petition. “Such conduct is not a mistake. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court”, it asserted.

Thus, dismissing the Petition, the Bench imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner to compensate the respondents for the hardship caused and to protect the judicial process from being misused.

Cause Title: Ramrao Tukaram Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:48823)

Appearance

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Girish S. Godbole, Advocate Shrishailya S. Deshmukh

Respondent: AGP P.G. Sawant, Senior Advocate Vijay D. Patil, Advocates S.R. Nargolkar, Arjun Kadam, Neeta Patil, Abhishek Arote, Yogesh V. Patil

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Amit Borkar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.