Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 7: In a significant judgment, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has imposed Rs 20,000 cost on the petitioner for suppression of material facts and playing mischief with the court.
While dismissing the petition of one Gulshan Kumar, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “the petitioner Gulshan Kumar 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”.
After hearing Advocate 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 namely Harshvardhan Singh (Chairman Jammu Tehsil Cooperative Marketing Society), 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.
“This court deems it proper to burden the petitioner with cost 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”, Justice Nargal said.
As per the brief facts before the High Court, a civil miscellaneous appeal came to be preferred against the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by Sub Judge (CJM), Jammu, whereby and where-under, the status quo has been directed to be maintained with respect to the service status of Gulshan Kumar with the prayer for setting aside the same.
The leave application arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal which has been filed by Chairman Jammu Tehsil Cooperative Marketing Society against the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the Sub Judge, Jammu, whereby the court has proceeded to pass orders of status quo as regards functioning of the plaintiff 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) 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 Chairman Jammu Tehsil Cooperative Marketing Society as a party in the suit before the Trial Court and obtained ex parte order, whereas, the fact remains that the Chairman happens to be a proper and necessary party to the proceeding as directly affected by the order impugned dated 02.01.2024.
The Trial Court vide order dated 02.01.2024 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 order, an appeal came to be preferred by the Chairman before the appellate court, which stayed the order of CJM. Against the order of appellate court, Gulshan Kumar filed petition before the High Court.
“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”, High Court said, adding “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”.
“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 policy, the appellate court has rightly overruled the objection raised by the petitioner in granting leave to file appeal. Thus, the order of the appellate court, which is impugned in the present petition cannot be faulted and the same is accordingly upheld”, High Court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
