Jugglery, Manipulation Has No Place In Courts: Jammu & Kashmir HC Upholds Imposition Of Exemplary Cost On Party For Suppressing Material Facts

Upholding a single judge verdict wherein the writ court had imposed Rs one lakh penalty on petitioner for suppressing material facts and misleading the court to gain advantage over the other side, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently observed that that jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.

The observations were made by a bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta while hearing appeals challenging the judgment passed by a single-judge bench on January 11th 2023 in terms of which the writ court had imposed costs on petitioner for suppressing material facts and had warned the counsel for writ petitioner to be very careful in future.

After perusing the entire record the bench noted that there was wilful attempt on the part of writ petitioner not to state the entire facts pertaining to the subject matter and, thus, to mislead the court to pass a favourable order.

Deliberating on the appeals the court said that a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands and candidly state all the facts before the court without reservation. He cannot be permitted to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and keep back or conceal other facts, the bench underscored.

Observing that the the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary, the bench maintained,

"Suppression of material facts, concealment of full details of litigation, present and past, between the parties qua subject matter of dispute, distortion or manipulation of relevant facts, misleading the court by stating false facts or withholding true facts disentitle a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India,".

In order to address the contention of the appellants that on the facts and on material on record there was no suppression of material facts and that the Writ Court could not draw distinction between the “material facts” and “unnecessary and peripheral facts”, the bench found it worthwhile to record the observations of supreme court Shri K. Jayaram and others v. Bangalore Development Autho Online 1994 , rity and others, 2021 wherein the SC while referring to a catena of judgments on the matter observed,

"We are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.”

Deliberating further on the prerequisites to invoke the extraordinary, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, the court observed that it is of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything.

"In the light of clear exposition of law by the Apex Court, when we examine the impugned judgment, we cannot help reach a conclusion that the view taken by the Writ Court is a very balanced view in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, unexceptionable.", the court said.

Pointing out to the considerate approach of the writ court while administering warning a to the counsel for the writ petitioner, the bench however, substituted the “warning” administered to the learned counsel by “advice” observing that it is in his interest to remain careful in future and not entirely get into the shoes of client.

"As an officer of the Court, a lawyer has equally onerous duty towards the Court as he has towards his client", the bench concluded while dismissing the appeals.

Case Title: Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 73

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr MA Qayoom, Mr P. S. Ahmad, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Mr Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Senior Advocate with Mr Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment