MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Revision Petition Due to Concealment of Vital Facts, Imposes Exemplary Costs of Rs. 1 Lakh

04 September 2024 11:03 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgement delivered on August 10, 2023, dismissed a revision petition challenging an eviction order. The petitioner's attempt to mislead the court by concealing vital facts played a pivotal role in the court's decision.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal, while pronouncing the judgement, highlighted the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings. The court observed, "Litigants approaching the court must adhere to the principle of clean hands. Attempts to mislead and deceive the court by withholding vital information are not only frowned upon but are also against the very essence of justice."

The case centered around an eviction petition filed by the respondent-decree holder against the petitioner-judgment debtor, seeking possession of a shop. The court took note of the fact that the petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn. However, the petitioner failed to disclose this crucial aspect before both the executing court and the High Court during the revision proceedings.

Justice Aggarwal emphasized that the petitioner's concealment of facts amounted to an attempt to deceive the court and mislead the legal process. The court cited legal precedents, underscoring that litigants approaching the court must do so with the utmost transparency. The court's decision highlighted that those who initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts and attempt to gain an advantage by withholding crucial information are not entitled to relief.

The judgement reiterated the well-established principle that courts expect litigants to approach them with clean hands. The court expressed that such principles are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that justice is served in a fair and transparent manner.

In light of the petitioner's conduct, the court not only dismissed the revision petition but also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner. This cost is to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within a specified timeframe. The court also directed that, in case of non-compliance, the costs would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Date of Decision: 10.08.2023

Sukhdev Singh vs Mulkh Raj 

Latest Legal News