Back
High Court Of Delhi
HOLY HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGD.) - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Suit 2028 of 1995
Decided On : 05/24/1999
Held:
The plaintiff while filing the present suit did not disclose to the Court about the plaint and the application in the earlier suit and also did not disclose to the Court about the proceedings in the earlier suit, particularly, the fact of rejection of the prayer for interim injunction and dismissal of the appeal there from to the Court. The plaintiff did not disclose to the Court cither in the plaint or in the application as to what had transpired in the Court on the dates when the said suit was fixed, nor it was disclosed to the Court that injunction had not been granted in its favor by the Court and the relief claimed in the application in the earlier suit was almost similar to the relief as claimed in the present suit for the earlier suit was based on the show cause notice issued to the plaintiff whereas, the present suit is based on the final notice issued to the plaintiff cancelling the lease.
I am, thereforee, of the considered opinion that the plaintiff did not come to this Court with clean hands and has also suppressed material facts from this Court with a view to gain advantage in the second suit and this is clearly over-reaching the Court.
Thus, an attempt has been made by the plaintiff to over-reach the Court and the plaintiff has played fraud upon the Court as well as upon the opposite party and thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff itself is liable to be dismissed, in view of suppression and concealment of material facts by the plaintiff and his failure to come to the Court with clean hands.
The other submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the objection/issue regarding alleged suppression of material facts cannot be considered by Court unless the same is specifically raised by way of an application is also without any merit. The defendant has raised the issue in the pleadings filed by way of reply and on the basis thereof, the Court is competent to decide the issue as the same relates to the conduct of the panics in approaching the Court, which goes to the root of the matter.
( 1 ) THE present suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant-Delhi Development Authority fromgiving effect to the letter dated 17. 8. 1995 issued by it cancelling the allotment andlease of land of the plaintiff society at Sector -C, Pocket-3 Vasant Kunj, Newdelhi, and also for a decree not to dispossess the plaintiff -society from the land in question.
( 2 ) A copy of the letter dated 17. 8. 1995 is annexed as Annexure-L to the plaint. Bylhc said letter, the plaintiff-society was informed that the reply of the plaintiff-societyshowing cause as to why the lease/allotment of the land allotted to the plaintiff-societyshould not be cancelled due to violation of Clause 11 (13) of the lease deed byrenting out the building to a third parly for commercial use was examined and thesame was not found satisfactory and accordingly the decision of the defendantauthority was intimated to the plaintiff cancelling the lease/allotment of theaforesaid land allolled to the plaintiff-society.
( 3 ) IT may be mentioned herein that as against the show cause notice dated 3. 2. 3995issued by the defendant-authority to the plaintiff-Society. a suit was instituted by theplaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi. A copy of the said plaint is also placed onrecord. In the said suit, the plaintiff sought for a decree for permanent injunctionrestraining the defendant from cancelling allotment of the land as well as lease ofthe suit property in the name of the plaintiff and also restraining the defendantfrom taking any action for cancellation of the land/lease or re-entering the samewith cost. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff also filed an application seeking forinterim injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding to cancel the said lease. The Civil Judge, Delhi, however, rejected the prayer for grant of ad interim temporary injunction as against which an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff which wasalso dismissed as against which Civil Revision was preferred by the plaintiff whichis pending disposal in this Court.
( 4 ) THE present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 31. 8. 1995 when summons weredirected to be issued and in the injunction application filed by the plaintiff, anorder of ex parte injunction was passed restraining the defendant from taking anyfurther action as per their letter of cancellation of allotment/lease of land dated17. 8. 1995 which was received by the plaintiff on 30. 8. 1995. In the said injunctionapplication filed by the plaintiff, reply was filed by the defendant and the said application is also pending disposal in this Court. A number of other interim applications came to be filed in this Court which are pending disposal. Said similarapplications are I. A. Nos. 9048/1995, 2697/1996, 12254/1996, 1164/1997, 1697,1680/1998,2061/1999 and 464/1999.
( 5 ) IN I. A. No. 1164/1997, the plaintiff has sought for a direction to the defendant,directing them to allow the plaintiff change of user of the premises in dispute. Asagainst the aforesaid application, a reply has been filed by the defendant contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts in the present suitand, therefore, not only the injunction application is liable to be dismissed, but, thesuit itself is liable to be dismissed in view of suppression and concealment of materialand relevant facts by the plaintiff in the present suit. It is stated that the plaintifffiled an earlier suit for injunction against the defendant seeking for a decree forpermanent injunction against the show cause notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority, which was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi. The injunctionprayed for in the said suit was rejected by the Trial Court and the appeal preferredby the plaintiff was also dismissed as against which Civil Revision filed in the Highcourt is pending. It is stated that the aforesaid facts were suppressed in the presents
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
