Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Pratap Singh Gurjar - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. And Another - Respondents
M. P. No. 105 of 2019
Decided On : 16-01-2019
For the Petitioner: U.K. Bohare
For the Respondents:Vivek Jain, Government Advocate
Suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining any relief and may lead to the dismissal of the petition.
Headnote:
Suppression of Material Facts - Civil Procedure Code - Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the petitioner's suppression of material facts in filing a civil suit and an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. The court highlighted the principles of Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata and emphasized the consequences of deliberate suppression of material facts. The court referred to various legal provisions and judgments to establish that suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining any relief and may lead to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a civil suit for grant of lease and permanent injunction against the respondents, claiming possession of the disputed land. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition seeking similar relief, which was dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit. The petitioner filed the civil suit without disclosing the dismissal of the earlier suit and obtained an order by suppressing material facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed material facts in filing the civil suit and application, and had obtained an order by playing fraud on the court. The court held that the suppression of material facts disqualified the petitioner from obtaining any relief and dismissed the petition with heavy costs.
Issues: The issues involved the deliberate suppression of material facts by the petitioner in filing the civil suit and application, and the consequences of such suppression on the petitioner's right to obtain relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining any relief and may lead to the dismissal of the petition. The court referred to legal principles such as Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata to emphasize the consequences of deliberate suppression of material facts.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts with a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Only). The court held the petitioner responsible for the suppression of material facts and emphasized the consequences of such actions.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Pratap Singh Gurjar vs. State of M.P.:
- Case Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging orders passed by lower courts that rejected an application for temporary injunction and lease under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (!) (!) .
- Prior Litigation History: The petitioner had previously filed a civil suit (CS No. 39A/2013) regarding the same land, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner then filed a civil appeal (CA No. 18A/2015), which was dismissed. Subsequently, a second appeal (SA No. 78/2016) before the High Court was also dismissed, confirming that the petitioner failed to prove title or possession (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Suppression of Material Facts: In the current writ petition and the subsequent civil suit filed under the liberty granted in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact that his earlier suits and appeals regarding the same land had been dismissed up to the stage of the second appeal (!) (!) .
- Fraud on the Court: The court held that by suppressing these material facts, the petitioner misled the court, played fraud on the court, and abused the process of the court to obtain a favorable order and file a new suit despite the statutory bar of Res Judicata (!) (!) (!) .
- Legal Principles Applied: The court relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining relief, and a litigant must approach the court with "clean hands" and full disclosure of facts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Decision: The petition was dismissed on the grounds of suppression of material facts and abuse of the court's process (!) (!) .
- Costs: The petitioner was ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs Only) as compensation for the loss of judicial time (!) .
- Adviser's Role: The court noted that it is unclear if the petitioner personally prompted the suppression or was misled by legal advice, reserving the petitioner's right to seek recourse against his legal adviser if applicable (!) .
ORDER :
Shri U. K. Bohare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Jain, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 12-12-2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 6/2018, thereby affirming the order dated 13-7-2018 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Karera, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 165A/2017, by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code has been rejected.
3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner has filed a suit for grant of lease as well as permanent injunction against the respondents. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 16203/2017, seeking the following relief’s :-
^^Áfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks vkns'k@funsZ'k fn;k tk;s fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dks xzke xM+kSy rglhy ujoj ds vkjkth losZ uEcj 37 jdck 1-06 gsDVj Hkwfe ls fcuk dkuwuh ÁfØ;k viuk;s csn[ky u fd;k tk;sA
2- ;kfpdkdrkZ vkjkth losZ uEcj 37 dh Hkwfe ij o"kZ 1984 ls d`f"k dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk vkosnd dh Hkwfe ls mDr losZ uEcj yxk gqvk gSA blfy, vkjkth losZ uEcj 37 dk iV~Vk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fgr esa fd;k tk;sA
3- vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks Ádj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuq#i mfpr gks og ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fgr esa tkjh dh tk;sA
4- ;kfpdkdrkZ dks eqdnesa dk gtkZ [kpkZ Hkh Áfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k ls fnyk;k tk;s vkSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tk;s rks ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh vfrd`ik gksxhA**
4. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition, this Court passed the order dated 31-10-2017, which is as follows :-
“Shri U. K. Bohre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State.
After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file civil suit seeking declaration of title over the land in question.
Prayer is allowed.
Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty.”
5. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed a civil suit against respondents claiming that he is in possession of the land in dispute and the High Court in Writ Petition No. 16203/2017 has passed the above-mentioned order and the civil suit is being filed in compliance of the said order. Petitioner also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court by order dated 13-7-2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 165A/2017 rejected the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner filed civil appeal, which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 6/2018, which has been dismissed by the Second Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri by order dated 13-12-2018.
6. Challenging the order passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute and it is well established principle of law that even an encroacher cannot be dispossessed without following due procedure of law and, therefore, the Courts below have committed material illegality by rejecting his application filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code.
7. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
8. Before considering the facts of the present case, it is suffice to mention that this case is a glaring example of suppression of material facts, misleading the Court and misuse of lawful authority of the Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, such type of cases are liable to be dealt with, with all firmness.
9. The present case has chequered history, which has been suppressed by t
