J&K&L HC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Petitioner On Account Of Concealment Of Facts, Suppression Of Litigation History
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while deciding a plea filed against the order of the District Magistrate directing the Tehsildar to evict the petitioner from the land has imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner on account of concealing the facts of the case and suppressing the litigation history.
The petitioner indulged in suppressing of the material facts for the purpose of securing an Order in his favour.
A Single Bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi held, “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 the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner is burdened with a cost of Rs. 100,000/- (one lac) to be deposited in the Lawyers Welfare Fund within a period of one month.”
The Bench also asserted that the petition was not maintainable.
Advocate P.S. Ahmad appeared on behalf of the petitioner while AAG F.A. Bhat appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts –
This petitioner challenged the deed of Power of Attorney executed by the respondent and the Agreement to Sell executed by him in favour of the private respondents. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed an application for a grant of a temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with the suit property.
The notices were directed to be issued and in the meantime, parties were directed to maintain the status quo with respect to the suit property till further orders. The application was finally considered on merits after hearing both parties and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the District Magistrate directed the Tehsildar to proceed on spot and evict the petitioner from the land.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of both parties asserted, “… it is a clear case of suppression of material facts. Petitioner has patently made a false statement on oath. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything.”
The Court also noted that not only the petitioner but also his counsel intentionally concealed the material facts from the Court and that the interim order was passed without having any knowledge of the misrepresentation by the petitioner.
“Though counsel for the petitioner is also responsible for professional misconduct but this court only warns him to be very careful in future. Needless to mention here that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts of the case in hand”, the Court further observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and imposed a cost on the petitioner.
Cause Title- Fayaz Ahmad Rather v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.