Delhi High Court Fines Petitioner ₹1 Lakh for Suppression of Material Facts and Abuse of Court Process

In a stern message against the misuse of judicial forums, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by one Manorama Sakkerwal, imposing a cost of ₹1,00,000 upon the petitioner. Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the matter, ruled that the petitioner had engaged in a "clear suppression of material facts" and attempted to mislead the Court by concealing a prior civil suit filed on the same cause of action.

The Background of the Dispute

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking to restrain respondents from carrying out construction at a property in Raiger Pura, Karol Bagh. However, investigations revealed that the petitioner had previously filed a civil suit— Manorama Devi Versus Sunil Kumar & Ors. —before the Tis Hazari Courts, which was dismissed on April 30, 2025.

During the hearing, it emerged that the petitioner did not reside at the property in question, which had reportedly remained vacant for over two decades. Furthermore, the petitioner's Aadhaar card appeared to have been updated just days before the filing of the current writ petition, raising questions about the legitimacy of her claims.

Allegations of Extortion and Misleading Conduct

Counsel for the respondent provided evidence suggesting that the petitioner had approached the property owners with the intent to extort money regarding the ongoing construction. A formal complaint regarding this was lodged with the Station House Officer (SHO) of Karol Bagh Police Station.

The Court further noted a concerning inconsistency in the submissions made by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). While the MCD had previously informed the Tis Hazari Court that the construction was in accordance with its sanctioned building plan under the SARAL Scheme , it later filed a status report before the High Court claiming that unauthorized construction existed on the site. Justice Pushkarna directed the MCD to "relook into the matter" regarding these contradictory positions.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the high bar set for those invoking the Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Justice Pushkarna cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.D. Sharma Versus Steel Authority of India Limited and Others , emphasizing that:

> "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary... If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim."

The Court did not mince words regarding the petitioner's conduct, stating: * "The facts disclosed before this Court are very serious in nature and no party can be allowed to use the process of this Court for ulterior motives..." * "There is no doubt that this Court takes very serious note of cases wherever unauthorized construction is carried out, however, the same does not give any leeway to any party to blackmail such persons."

The Final Ruling

Finding the current petition was filed with "oblique motives" rather than for the purposes of seeking justice, the Court dismissed the matter and directed the petitioner to deposit ₹1,00,000 as costs with the Delhi High Court Advocates' Welfare Trust within six weeks. Additionally, the SHO of Prasad Nagar, Karol Bagh, has been ordered to take appropriate action on the extortion complaint filed by the respondent.

This ruling serves as a stark reminder that the judiciary serves as a forum for genuine grievance, and attempts to manipulate the legal system for coercive gains or through the suppression of material facts will be met with severe financial and legal consequences.