Telangana High Court Imposes Fine Of ₹1 Crore On Litigant Who Filed Multiple 'Vexatious' Cases While Suppressing Material Facts
"From the ancient scriptures to the cultural practices, the commitment to truth has been the cornerstone of Indian ethics," the Court said.;
The Telangana High Court has imposed a fine of Rupees 1 crore on a litigant who had approached the Court, filed vexatious cases and suppressed material facts regarding court orders passed against him.Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka noted that the petitioner and his late father had been filing cases since 1989 regarding the same land parcel and had frustrated the government, the legitimate owners of...
The Telangana High Court has imposed a fine of Rupees 1 crore on a litigant who had approached the Court, filed vexatious cases and suppressed material facts regarding court orders passed against him.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka noted that the petitioner and his late father had been filing cases since 1989 regarding the same land parcel and had frustrated the government, the legitimate owners of the land.
Baffled by the number of cases that were filed by the petitioner, Justice Bheemapaka went to the extent of saying that the petitioner tarnished 'Satya', a fundamental and core value of Indian Society. He noted that 'Satya' did not refer to merely speaking the truth, but maintaining integrity and upholding justice, human dignity, and collective progress.
“The significance of Satya is seen in the importance it holds in everyday life. From the ancient scriptures to the cultural practices, the commitment to truth has been the cornerstone of Indian ethics. In the modern context, the reverence for Satya remains integral in ensuring the integrity of social, legal, and political systems, reinforcing the importance of truth in upholding justice, human dignity, and collective progress. This case depicts a classic example how such a cherished basic value by Indian Society for centuries has been put under carpet by petitioner.”
It was pointed out, by the respondent counsel recent years, since 2022, 6 writ petitions were filed before the High Court, by the petitioner seeking similar relief, in regard to the same land parcel, by tweaking the prayer just enough to pass it off as a fresh case.
“All the learned counsel, in one voice, submit that unable to obtain any favourable orders as desired from this Court, Pattabhi Rami Reddy and later his son ie. petitioner indulged in 'Forum shopping' by approaching different Benches for the same relief by making a minor change in the prayer clause of the petition and substituting some Official Respondents for others with a view to confer jurisdiction on a particular Court, although the prayers are apparently different, the core issue in each petition is centered round the not to interfere orders against the Revenue Department.”
Background:
According to the petitioner, they were the owners and had been in possession of the disputed land parcel since time immemorial and had even set a place of worship at the site and cultivated the land to eke out a living. That due to a mistake, their name was not mentioned in the official revenue records, and that since 1989, he, along with his father, have been trying to rectify the error in the revenue records. However, the revenue officials have been trying to take possession of the land, claiming it to be government land, basing on the wrong entries.
The official respondents painted a different picture. It was brought to the notice of the Court that in 1989, the father of the petitioner filed an Original Suit before the Trial Court for declaration and perpetual injunction, which was dismissed. An appeal against the order was dismissed, and a revision preferred against that was again dismissed. A second appeal was filed challenging the revision, which was pending at the time of the filing the present case.
That multiple cases were filed before the High Court between 2022 and 2024 and in 2024, relying on the Writ petitions, a second original Suit was filed before the Trial Court and an ex-parte injunction order was passed in favour of the petitioner.
The respondents further brought to the notice of the court that no sooner was the ex-parte order passed, the Writ petitions mentioned in the Original Suit, on the basis of which orders were garnered, were withdrawn.
The Court noted that none of the facts narrated by the respondents were brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner. And the same would amount to suppression of material facts; approaching the court with unclean hands.
Relying on R. V. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner and K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority the Bench concluded that the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution in an extraordinary and equitable relief and it is imperative that the petitioner approach the court with clean hands.
“It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the Court as well as the opposite party which cannot be countenanced”
The court noted that the maxim suppression veri expression falsi I.e. Supression of truth is equivalent to expression falsehood, should be applied to the situation at hand. Thus, to curb the petitioner, a fine of 1 cr was imposed and directed to be paid to the registry before 10th of next month, and if the directions were not complied with, the registry was directed to list the matter again on 11th of April.
Venkata Rami Reddy v. State of TS
Counsel for petitioner: Sr. Counsel Vedula Venkata Ramana appearing for K. Dheeraj
Counsel for respondents: M. V, Hanumantha Rao, Gp for Stamps, GP for Revenue.
