[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 543: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 127: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4759: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3887)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4761: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3887)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4762: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3887)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4763: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3887)
498a Discussion Forum - View topic - HC (Allahabad): Perjury be disposed off first
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:53 pm



Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
HC (Allahabad): Perjury be disposed off first 
Author Message

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Delhi (India)
It should give a lot of heart and courage to fellow victims of false complaints.

Court should dispose of the application U/s 340 CrPC first
Court : High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brief : : if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.

Citation : not searched reporters by me

Judgment :

Court No.29
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ Petition No. (M/S) of 2002

Syed Nazim Husain

Vs.

The Additional Principal
Judge Family Court & another

Hon'ble A. Mateen, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A.

Since a very trivial point is involved I propose to dispose of the petition at this initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated 24.10.2002 be quashed.

From the order dated 24.10.2002 it comes out that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on the application, moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. instead of disposing of the same had postponed disposal of the said application and ordered that said application may be disposed of after evidence is recorded in case No. 566/89.

In my view, if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.

In the circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law.

With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally.

9.1.2003 sd- A.Mateen


Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:41 pm
Profile YIM

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:57 pm
Posts: 370
Thanks a lot Shoneek, tussi gr8 ho!


Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:43 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:00 am
Posts: 607
Shoneek this is good judgement . I think next time when we built/make survial guide we need to add all these cases also into it . Which can help victims to make their mind to fight against these 498a gals

_________________
Regards
Rajeev
"I am thankful to all those who said NO, Its bcoz of them I did it myself" - Einstein


Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:43 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:51 pm
Posts: 280
Location: mumbai
Shoonee this judgment is of great help when judiciary tries dilay tactics in 340. I have the perjury matter next month. The judge has opined the main case will not stand if perjury is decided first. We know how perjury can be side tracked so' will show the judge the Allahbad HC observations. 'shall keep you posted


Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:31 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Delhi (India)
Hi Salim,

Unfortunately in other states, it would only be a persuasive judgement.

However, I am sure the other party won't have any judgement which says that perjury should be disposed with/ after the main case. Hence, it is more likely to succeed.

If you are citing this judgement, also cite the recent SC Judgement, which says:- "the party coming to court with lies and unclean hands are not entitled for any relief, whether interim or final."

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor


Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:58 am
Profile YIM

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:57 pm
Posts: 370
Apologies for elongating the thread, but could you kidnly put a link to that judgement? I tried to search it in the forum but no luck. Is it a Perjury judgement or maintenance judgement?


Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:42 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:51 pm
Posts: 280
Location: mumbai
Shonee, I suppose your reference is to J Kuldip Nayyars judgment. There are some other judgments which may be of help to other members in the forum
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3044 of 2003

RAM SARAN
Vs.
I.G. OF POLICE, CRPF & OTHERS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR

Dated: February 2, 2006
A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud."

10. Though the case related to a false caste certificate, the logic indicated clearly applies to the present case.

11. This is a case which does not deserve any leniency otherwise it would be giving premium to a person who admittedly committed forgery.


Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:03 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:10 pm
Posts: 229
Nowadays many Judgments are being given by Supreme Court/High Court Judges in support of boys and the fact that the women have to come with clean hands first to the court before they can claim any type of maintenance or other relief. Only honest & strong lawyers will utilize these judgments to fight and win cases in favour of boys...

Thank you very much Shoneek for giving us this judgment. Have you used this judgment recently in your case?

scmp


Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:46 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Delhi (India)
I have not used this judgement as yet....

But I favor usage of citations favoring you at the right time


Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:58 am
Profile YIM

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:38 am
Posts: 31
Hi All,

I have been searching the forum for this SC judgement suggested by Shonee ji -

" you are citing this judgement, also cite the recent SC Judgement, which says:- "the party coming to court with lies and unclean hands are not entitled for any relief, whether interim or final."

But, unable to find it. I gave various search options like 'Supreme Court+ interim or final+Nayyar etc, but no luck.

Would it be possible to direct me to a link to this jdugement, or case details, so I can download the judgement.

Thanks,


Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:53 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Delhi (India)
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5455&p=24121&hilit=neither+interim+nor+final#p24121

ITEM NO.101(PH) COURT NO.11 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5239 OF 2002
DALIP SINGH Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,directions and office
report )

Date: 03/12/2009 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY

For Appellant(s)
Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prashante Jha, adv.
Ms. Manjula Gupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. L.K. Pandey,Adv.
Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr.Adv.
Mr. S.K. Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Amit Singh, adv.
Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey ,Adv
Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan ,Adv
Mr. K.C. Lamba, adv.
Mr. Chand Kiran, Adv.
Mr. Kartar Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed
reportable order.


(Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Mithlesh Gupta)
Court Master Court Master

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)
REPORTABLE


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CIVIL APPEAL NO.5239 OF 2002


DALIP SINGH Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)


O R D E R




1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic
values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non-violence).
Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an
integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-
independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in
the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.
The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for
personal gain has become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those
who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They
shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving
their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed
of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules
and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of
justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim
or final.



2. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, this Court

adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the

appellant by making the following observations:

"It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution,
care must be taken not to make any statements which are
inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court naturally
takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained
in the petitions at their face value and it would be
unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making
statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at
the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied
that the material statements made by the appellant in his
application for special leave are inaccurate and
misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that
the appellant may have obtained special leave from the
Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterizes as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for
special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the
conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to
the appellant ought to be revoked."



3. In Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and

others etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015, the Court held that a party which has

misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled

to be heard on the merits of the case.


4. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Governor of

Karnataka and another AIR 1991 SC 1726, the Court denied relief to

the appellant who had concealed the fact that the award was not made

by the Land Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section

11-A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by

the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the

Court observed:

"Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special
Leave Petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to
know about these orders only when the respondents appeared
in response to the notice and filed their counter
affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a
direct bearing on the question raised and the non-
disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of
material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave
Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled
in law that the relief under Article 136 of the
Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who
approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank
and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and
suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be
dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave
Petitions."



5. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath

(dead) by L.Rs. and others JT 1993 (6) SC 331, the Court held that

where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important

document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown

out at any stage of the litigation.



6. In Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC

449, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but

is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's

jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to

place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If

there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been

placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in

refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J.

in R v Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (1917) 1 K.B. 486, and

observed:

"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the
conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction.
If the applicant does not disclose full facts or
suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of
misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the
action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The
rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court
by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction
rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts.
If the material facts are not candidly stated or are
suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the
writ courts would become impossible."



7. In A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of A.P. and

others, AIR 2007 SC 1546, the Court held that Article 136 does not

confer a right of appeal on any party. It confers discretion on

this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate cases. In other

words, the Constitution has not made the Supreme Court a regular

Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. This Court only intervenes

where justice, equity and good conscience require such intervention.



8. In Sunil Poddar & Ors. v Union Bank of India (2008) 2 326,

the Court held that while exercising discretionary and equitable

jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and

circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find

out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not

come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the

facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings,

then the Court will non-suit him on the ground of contumacious

conduct.



9. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others

(2008) 12 SCC 481, the court held 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 and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching

the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the

facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything

and seek an appropriate relief. 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 same rule was

reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and

others (2009) 3 SCC 141.



10. This appeal, which is directed against order dated

21.5.2001 passed by the Allahabad High Court is illustrative of how

unscrupulous litigants can mislead the authorities entrusted with

the task of implementing the provisions of U.P. Imposition of

Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act") and the

courts for retaining possession of the surplus land. The tenure-

holder Praveen Singh did not file statement in terms of Section

9(2-A) of the Act in respect of his holding as on 24.1.1971. After

about four years, the Prescribed Authority issued notice dated

29.11.1975 under Section 10(2) of the Act and called upon Shri

Praveen Singh to show cause as to why the statement prepared under

Section 10(1) of the Act may not be taken as correct and his land

may not be declared surplus accordingly. A copy of the statement

was sent to Shri Praveen Singh along with the notice in C.L.H. Form

No.4. For the sake of convenient reference, the notice is

reproduced below:

"C.L.H. FORM NO. 4

(See Rule 8)

(Form of Notice under Section 10(2) of the imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961)

To,
Name of tenure-holder Sri Praveen Singh
With parentage s/o. Shri Raghubir Singh and
Address r/o Village Tisotara, P.O. Khas, Pargana
Kirat Pur, Tehsil Najibabad, District
Bijnor.

Whereas you have failed to submit a statement/have
furnished incomplete/incorrect statement in respect of all
your holdings in the State of Uttar Pradesh including
holdings of your family members with all the required
particulars within the time mentioned in the notice in
C.L.H. Form 1, published under Section 9;

And whereas the statement of all holdings held by you
in the State on 8th June, 1973, statement showing proposed
ceiling area applicable to you and the proposed surplus
land have been prepared under sub-section (1) of Section
10, they are sent to you herewith and you are hereby
called upon to show cause within a period of 15 days from
the date of service of this notice, why the said statement
be not taken as correct.

On your failure to dispute the correctness of the
statements in any court, within the time allowed, the
aforesaid statement shall be treated as final and ceiling
area applicable to you and the surplus land shall be
determined accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of
29-11-1975.

S/d-
Signature of the Prescribed Authority of the Sub-
Division Prescribed Authority
Tehsil Najibabad."

11. The notice was delivered to Shri Praveen Singh on

3.12.1975, but he neither filed any objection to the proposed

determination of his surplus land nor sought extension of time for

the said purpose. After service of notice, the Prescribed Authority

adjourned the case on 10.12.1975 and again on 19.12.1975 apparently

with the hope that the tenure-holder may file objection to the

statement prepared under Section 10(1). This is evident from the

proceeding sheets of the two dates, which are reproduced below:

Proceedings dated 10.12.1975

10.12.1965 File received after service of notice on
the tenure-holder on 3.12.1975.

It is ordered that the file be put up on
19.12.1975 after receipt of objections.

Sd/-
Prescribed Authority
Proceedings dated 19.12.1975

19.12.1975 File put up. The tenure-holder has not
filed any objection despite service.

It is ordered that the file be put up for
ex-parte orders on 27.12.1975.
Sd/-

Prescribed Authority"



12. On 27.12.1975, the Prescribed Authority noted that Shri

Praveen Singh has not filed any objection and declared that 18.22

acres of irrigated land was surplus in the hands of the tenure-

holder. After six months and twelve days, Shri Praveen Singh

submitted an application dated 8.7.1976 along with what was termed

as an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority and prayed that ex

parte order dated 27.12.1975 may be set aside and he may be given

opportunity to file objections and tender evidence. The Prescribed

Authority rejected the application on the same day i.e. 8.7.1976 by

observing that no valid ground has been made out for reconsidering

the matter after six months. The appeal preferred by Shri Praveen

Singh against the order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed by

Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad (Appellate Authority)

in default because no one appeared on the date of hearing. The

restoration application filed by Shri Praveen Singh was dismissed on

27.8.1980. He then challenged the orders of the Prescribed

Authority and Appellate Authority in Writ Petition No. 8342/1980,

which was allowed by the High Court and the matter was remitted to

the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the application

of Shri Praveen Singh afresh in accordance with law.



13. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, the

Appellate Authority reconsidered the appeal of Shri Praveen Singh

but dismissed the same on the ground that the tenure-holder had not

filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

condonation of the delay and even in the application filed for

setting aside the ex parte order, no cause was shown for the delay.

The Appellate Authority also observed that the tenure-holder had not

denied receipt of notice dated 29.11.1975 issued under Section 10(2)

of the Act, but did not file any objection till the passing of ex

parte order on 27.12.1975 and that his assertion of having come to

know of the ex parte order from Lekhpal Halqa on 7.7.1976 is not

believable. It appears that after remand of the matter by the High

Court, Shri Praveen Singh died and, therefore, his legal

representatives (including the appellant herein) were substituted in

his place.



14. The legal representatives of Shri Praveen Singh jointly filed

Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 22790/1990 and prayed for

quashing of orders dated 27.12.1975, 8.7.1976, 7.8.1990 passed by

the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively.

They also prayed for issue of a direction to the Appellate Authority

to remand the case to the Prescribed Authority for entertaining

their objections. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the

following statement was made:

"That the petitioner's late father, against whom the
proceedings had been initiated under Section 10(2) of
the Ceiling Act, filed application on 8.7.1976
supported by an affidavit stating therein clearly that
he was seriously ill for about ten months as such he
was not in a position to file objection, and as a
matter of fact he did not have any knowledge of the
date of the proceedings that were being conducted
before the prescribed authority. True copy of the
application dated 8.7.1976 of petitioners' late father
is annexed herewith as Annexure 2. True copy of the
affidavit filed in support of the application dated
8.7.1976 of the petitioners' father is annexed herewith
as annexure 3."

(Emphasis added)



15. By an order dated 7.9.1990, the learned Single Judge of the

Allahabad High Court stayed the operation of the orders passed by

the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. The interim

order remained operative till 21.5.2001 that is the date on which

the writ petition was finally dismissed and during the interregnum

the appellant continued to enjoy the property.



16. In the special leave petition filed against the order of the

High Court, notice was issued on 12.10.2001, but the appellants

prayer for stay was declined. Thereafter, the surplus land of the

tenure-holder was distributed among the landless persons who were

joined as parties pursuant to order dated 27.3.2006 passed in I.A.

No. 9/2004.



17. After service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed

counter in the form of an affidavit of Shri Pradip Kumar Singh,

Additional Tehsildar, District Bijnor, U.P. In his affidavit, Shri

Pradip Kumar gave details of the steps taken by the Prescribed

Authority in terms of Section 10(1) and 10(2) of the Act and made a

categorical assertion that notice issued on 29.11.1975 was duly

served upon Shri Praveen Singh on 3.12.1975. This is evident from

paragraphs 4(iv) and (v) of the counter affidavit read as under:

"(iv) That the averments of facts made in the list of
dates against date 7.7.1976 are not admitted being
incorrect. The notice in CLH Form No. 4 having been
served on the tenure-holder on 3.12.1975, it was for him
to have filed his objection. It was for the tenure-holder
to have managed his affairs. It is not for a Court or an
Authority to communicate to the tenure-holder each and
every order passed by it once service of the notice is
complete, the Act does not require that each and every
date of proceedings and the copy or information about the
final order ex parte or otherwise be served on him. The
tenure-holder avoided to file his objections since he had
none. The statement of surplus land is prepared by the
revenue authorities in accordance with the provisions of
the Act which is prepared on the basis of revenue records
of land held by a tenure-holder in his name and there is
`Presumption of correctness of the revenue record.'

(v) That the averments of fact in list of date
against date 8.7.1976 are not admitted as stated. It is
submitted that an application dated 8.7.1976 filed by the
tenure-holder did not dispute service of notice in CLH
Form No. 4 dated 29.11.1975. The application was of a
general nature. If a tenure-holder having been asked to
file objections within 15 days of the date of service of
him `chooses not to do so', would proceed to a presumption
that he has nothing to say. Section 11 o the Act provides
that where a tenure-holder chooses not to dispute and not
to file any objection to the statement prepared by the
Prescribed Authority under Section 10 of the Act within
the stipulated period, the Prescribed Authority `shall'
accordingly determine the surplus land of the tenure-
holder. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act further
provides that where an application is made by a tenure-
holder within thirty days of the date of an order under
sub-section (11) of the Act, that being a statutory duly
cast on the Prescribed Authority. In the present case the
Prescribed Authority after passing order dated 27.12.1975
fixed the next date as 27.1.1976 i.e. after 30 days and it
is only on 27.1.1976 that the Prescribed Authority sent
notification regarding publication of surplus land in
official Gazette which was so published on 5.6.1976."



18. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, son of the appellant Dalip Singh

and grandson of late Shri Praveen Singh filed rejoinder affidavit

dated 18th February, 2002. In paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit

Shri Sunil Kumar Singh made the following statement :-

"That it is denied categorically that the father of the
petitioner had ever received the notice dated
29.11.1975 along with the statement of surplus land,
prepared under section 10(1) of the Act. It is humbly
stated that father of the petitioner could not file any
show cause without going through the above referred
statement prepared under Section 10(1) of the Act."



19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized

the record. In our opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed

only on the ground that the tenure-holder Shri Praveen Singh did not

state correct facts in the application filed by him on 8.7.1976

before the Prescribed Authority for setting aside the ex parte order

and the appellant did not approach the High Court with clean hands

inasmuch as, by making a misleading statement in paragraph 3 of the

writ petition, an impression was created that the tenure-holder did

not know of the proceedings initiated by the Prescribed Authority.

By making the said statement, the appellant succeeded in persuading

the High Court to pass an interim order which resulted in

frustrating the efforts made by the concerned authority to

distribute the surplus land among landless persons. Even before

this Court, a patently false statement has been made in the

rejoinder affidavit on the issue of receipt of notice dated

29.11.1975 by Shri Praveen Singh.



20. A perusal of application dated 8.7.1976 submitted by Shri

Praveen Singh for setting aside ex parte order dated 27.12.1975

passed by the Prescribed Authority makes it clear that he had

pleaded his continuous illness for ten months as the cause for his

inability to file objection. In paragraph 2 of the application,

Shri Praveen Singh made a suggestive assertion that he had no

knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the Prescribed Authority

and he came to know about the case having been decided ex parte only

on 7.7.1976 when he went to Lekhpal to procure memo. There was not

even a whisper in the application that notice dated 29.11.1975

issued by the Prescribed Authority under Section 10(2) of the Act

had not been served upon him and on that account he could not file

objections within 15 days. The application filed by Shri Praveen

Singh was not supported by any medical certificate or other evidence

which could prima facie establish that he was really sick for ten

months. This is the reason why the Prescribed Authority refused to

reconsider order dated 27.11.1975 and the Appellate Authority

declined to entertain his prayer for remand of the case to the

Prescribed Authority for the purpose of fresh determination of

surplus area case. Notwithstanding this, in the writ petition filed

before the High Court a misleading statement was made that due to

serious illness, Shri Praveen Singh could not file objection and, as

a matter of fact, he did not have any knowledge of the dates of

proceedings which were conducted by the Prescribed Authority. In

view of that statement, the learned Single Judge of the High Court

felt persuaded to stay the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority

and Appellate Authority which, as mentioned above, resulted in

frustration of the action to be taken by the concerned authority for

distribution of the surplus land to landless persons for a good

period of more than eleven years and enabled the heirs of Shri

Praveen Singh to retain possession of the surplus land and enjoy the

same. Before the High Court also, no evidence was produced in

support of the assertion regarding serious illness of Shri Praveen

Singh. Insofar as this Court is concerned, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh,

grandson of Shri Praveen Singh and son of the appellant, boldly made

a false statement that his grandfather did not receive notice dated

29.11.1975 along with the statement of surplus land prepared under

Section 10(1) and he could not file any show cause without going

through the statement. We are amazed at the degree of audacity with

which Shri Sunil Kumar Singh could make a patently false statement

on oath.



21. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that in this

case efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts have

transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the

appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court

cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the

category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting

the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any justification

to interfere with the order under challenge or entertain the

appellant's prayer for setting aside the orders passed by the

Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority.


22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We would have saddled

the appellants with exemplary costs but, keeping in view the fact

that possession of the surplus land was taken in 2002 and the same

has been distributed among landless poor persons, we refrain from

doing so.

.......................J.
[G.S.Singhvi]



.......................J.
[Asok Kumar Ganguly]
New Delhi
December 3, 2009


Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:20 am
Profile YIM

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:38 am
Posts: 31
Thanks a lot Shonee ji! I got confused with Judge name Nayyar in the earlier sub-post. Thanks for this judgement. This one though is not available on SC website for some reason.

Thanks again!


Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:31 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:26 am
Posts: 96


Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:01 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:51 pm
Posts: 280
Location: mumbai
Supreme Court of India. Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 421, JT 1994 (7) 459. Bench: H B.L.. PETITIONER: CHANDRA SHASHI Vs. RESPONDENT: ANIL KUMAR VERMA ...
indiankanoon.org/doc/1224592/

This is another good judgment which can be used


Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:36 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:51 pm
Posts: 280
Location: mumbai
The Apex Court has
in S.P. Chengalavarya Naidu v/s.@@
Jagannath and others reported in@@
A.I.R. 1994 S.C. at page 853 inter@@
alia observed that the Courts of law
are meant for imparting justice
between the parties; that one who
comes to Court must come with clean
hands and that it can be said without
hesitation that a person whose case
is based on falsehood has no right to
approach the Court and he can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of
the litigation


Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:57 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:57 pm
Posts: 370
Thanks for the valuable judgements. Quiet appreciated.


Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:19 am
Posts: 7
The Allahabad HC Judgement is "non reported". Therefore, a certified copy of the above mentioned judgement would need to be obtained from the Allahabad HC. (Writ Petition No. Misc. Single 56 of 2002/2003)

Any thoughts of how this can be done from another city?


Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:05 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:15 pm
Posts: 119
Can anyone PLEASE help in getting the Certified / Reportable copy of the Allahabad High Court judgment ?
I am ready to pay for the judgement.


Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:01 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 18 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.