STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a significant judgment, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while dismissing the petition of Gulshan Kumar, observed that petitioner has not come to this court with clean hands by playing mischief before the Trial Court, wherein, the petitioner was aware that respondent no.5 was a necessary party and yet, deliberately omitted him from the array of respondents and obtained interim direction against him.
Court after hearing Adv Jang Bhadur Singh Jamwal for the petitioner whereas Deputy AG KDS Kotwal for the UT and Advocates Parvesh Singh Salaria & Satinder Gupta for the private respondent 5 namely Harshvardhan Singh, further observed that the act of petitioner falls within the realm of playing fraud with the court and such unscrupulous litigants, who play mischief with the court, cannot go scot-free and thus, this court deems it proper to burden the petitioner with costs to the tune of Rs. 20,000 to deprecate such practice of suppression of material facts and playing mischief with the court, which shall be payable by the petitioner to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today.
Briefly stating the facts in the instant petition are that a civil miscellaneous appeal came to be preferred against the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by learned Sub Judge (CJM), Jammu, whereby and where-under, the status quo has been directed to be maintained with respect to the service status of the petitioner herein (respondent No.1 therein) with the prayer for setting aside the same. The leave application arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal which has been filed by the respondent no.5 herein against the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Jammu, whereby the said court has proceeded to pass orders of status quo as regards functioning of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) as Managing Director of Jammu Tehsil, Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. Government undertaking who had since completed his service tenure on 15.07.2020 in terms of the Resolution dated 16.07.2020.
A suit came to be preferred by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) before the court of CJM, Jammu on 14.12.2023 restraining the defendants from terminating the services of the plaintiff or interfering into the working of the plaintiff as Managing Director of Jammu Tehsil Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd on the strength of a resolution adopted on 16.07.2020. The plaintiff did not array the respondent no.5 as a party in the suit before the Trial Court and obtained exparte order, whereas, the fact remains that the respondent no.5 happens to be a proper and necessary party to the proceeding as directly affected by the order impugned dated 02.01.2024.
The petitioner herein filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from terminating the services of the plaintiff or interfering into the working of the plaintiff claiming to be the Managing Director of Jammu Tehsil Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd in view of the resolution adopted in general body meeting.
The Trial Court vide order dated January 2, 2024 directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the service status of the plaintiff till next date of hearing and feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, an appeal came to be preferred by the respondent no.5 before the appellate court.
The appellant (respondent no.5 herein) claimed to be Chairman of the Jammu Tehsil Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd was aggrieved of the order impugned and sought leave of the Court to file the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff had proceeded to file suit without arraying the appellant as a necessary party in the suit and obtained ex parte order which if allowed to sustain, the plaintiff would perpetuate his stay in the organization, when the fact remains that the same was not legally permissible on any count and thus, the appellant was directly affected by the said order dated January 2, 2024 and hence leave was sought to file an appeal.
The specific objection was taken before the appellate court by the petitioner that the appeal was time barred because the order which was impugned in the appeal was passed on January 2, 2024, whereas, appeal along with application for leave to appeal was filed on February 23, 2024, which was barred by limitation.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal after hearing both the sides observed that the law has been settled that suppression of any material fact amounts to abuse of the process of law and amounts to fraud and would deprive an unscrupulous litigant from availing equitable or discretionary remedies. In the present case, the petitioner has not approached the trial court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts by way of misrepresentation and playing fraud on the court by deliberately omitting the affected party from the array of the respondents knowing fully well that he is the aggrieved party and the issue stands already clinched by this court.
Court observed that since the appellant has raised substantial issue that whether the trial court could have passed such order having regard to the nature of the material placed by the respondent and also in the light of the law laid down by a coordinate bench of this court and the circular issued by the Government governing the said policy, the appellate court has rightly overruled the objection raised by the petitioner herein in granting leave to file appeal. Thus, the order of the appellate court, which is impugned in the present petition, wherein, various issues of legal as well as factual importance have been raised, cannot be faulted and the same is accordingly upheld.
As a necessary corollary, the challenge thrown by the petitioner to the same by invoking the powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is ill founded and thus, the writ petition deserves dismissal being devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine for the reasons stated hereinabove, Court ordered.
The petitioner has not come to this court with clean hands by playing mischief before the Trial Court, wherein, the petitioner was aware that respondent no.5 was a necessary party and yet, deliberately omitted him from the array of respondents and obtained interim direction against him. Thus, the act of petitioner falls within the realm of playing fraud with the court and such unscrupulous litigants, who play mischief with the court, cannot go scot-free and thus, this court deems it proper to burden the petitioner with costs to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to deprecate such practice of suppression of material facts and playing mischief with the court, which shall be payable by the petitioner to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today, Court ordered.