RSA No. 3349 of 2008

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 3349 of 2008

Date of Decision: 24. 10. 2008

Bhanwar Singh and another

......Appellants

Versus

Smt.Dayawati alias Daya

...... Respondent

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Mr.P.R. Yadav, Advocate

for the appellants.

***

Ajay Tewari, J.

This appeal has been filed by a mortgagor against a decree for

redemption passed by the Lower Appellate Court.

The main argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that

the respondent-plaintiff had not disclosed to the Court earlier litigations

filed by her for redemption and for injunction and on the contrary when

those litigations had been referred to in the written statement the same had

been denied by the respondent-plaintiff in her replication. He has also

urged that in case of Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 1997(1)

PLR 553, a Division Bench of this Court had held as follows:-

“We are constrained to take a serious view of the suppression

RSA No. 3349 of 2008

2

of these material facts as concealing of these material facts, in

our considered opinion, tantamounts to playing fraud on the

Court. The view we have taken finds full support from a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya

Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. And others

A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 853:1994 (1) RRR 253 (SC).

Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya

Naidu (dead) by L.Rs v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others reported

as 1994 SC 853 wherein it was held as follows:-

“The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the

parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean

hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose

case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court.

He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all

the documents executed by him which are relevant to the

litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain

advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing

fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.”

In my opinion these judgments may not be applicable in the

present case. The judgment in Daljit Singh's case (supra) was rendered in a

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where there is no

question of leading evidence and the case has to be decided on the basis of

documents placed on record by the parties. In the case of S.P.

Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) what weighed with the Hon'ble Supreme

RSA No. 3349 of 2008

3

Court was the fact that the case was based on falsehood. This is not the

position here. The learned lower Appellate Court has rightly relied upon a

Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kishan v. Sheoram reported as

2008(1) Recent Civil Reports 334 to hold that there is no time limit fixed

for redemption and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harbans

Singh v. Gurnamditta Singh reported as 1991 PLJ 312 wherein it was

held that the redemption of mortgage is not barred even if application for

redemption under the Redemption of Mortgage (Punjab) Act has been

dismissed. Thus the dismissal of the earlier applications was not relevant to

the decision of the present lis and, therefore, the non-disclosure thereof

would not be concealment of a material fact. What has been found against

the appellants is that the respondent was a mortgagor and had the right to

redeem the property.

Consequently this appeal is dismissed. However, no order as to

costs.

(AJAY TEWARI)

JUDGE

October 24, 2008

sunita