'Equity Can't Bend Arms Of Law Where An Individual Acquires Status By Fraud'; HP HC Condemns Suppression Of Material Facts [Read Judgment]

"Person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who weeks 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 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."

The observations were made while allowing the revision petition filed by one Ved Prakash, against the order of District Judge, Shimla, whereby the application for condonation of delay filed by the Defendant herein, Rajneesh Kumar, was allowed.

While setting aside the application for condonation of delay, Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan said,

"it is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person."

In the facts of the case, the District Judge had allowed the Respondent's application for condonation of delay in a counter-claim filed by the Petitioner, on the ground that the Respondent party was mislead by its counsel that the claim was pending while the case had been disposed off ex-parte.

On a perusal of the court records and the appearance of parties recorded therein, the court concurred with the Petitioner's submission that the Respondent had deliberately suppressed the fact regarding knowledge of pendency of the Petitioner's counter claim.

"It is evidently clear that the respondents were not only fully aware of the pendency of the counter-claim on 22.3.2012, yet this fact has been deliberately and willfully concealed and not stated in the application for restoration. In fact the entire blame has been put on the earlier counsel that had been representing them."

The court went on to cite various precedents to assert that filing false or misleading statement itself is enough to invite adverse reaction.

For one, it referred to Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114, whereby the Supreme Court had considered the question whether relief should be denied who did not state correct facts in the application filed before the prescribed authority and who did not approach the High Court with clean hands. It observed therein that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, 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.

Accordingly, the order passed by District Judge, Shimla was set-aside and the application filed by the Respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was ordered to be dismissed.

Case Details:

Case Title: Ved Prakash v. Rajneesh Kumar & Anr.

Case No.: Quorum: Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan

Appearance: Senior Advocate Neeraj Gupta with Advocate Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal (for Petitioner); Advocate Anuj Gupta (for Respondents)

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment