Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukund Pohankae vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
1 RP-1084-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 10 th OF JULY, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1084 of 2025
MUKUND POHANKAE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Sunil Kherdikar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Dayaram Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1
to 3/State.
Shri Vipin Yadav - Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated
20.06.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19694 of 2025 whereby the writ
petition was disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.3/Tehsildar to
consider and decide the pending application of the writ petitioner in pursuance to
the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Collector within 30 days giving
audience to all the affected parties. It was further directed that till a decision is
taken by the respondent no.3, no third party right be created with respect to
property in question.
2. After disposal of the writ petition, on the very next date i.e. 21.06.2024,
a general notice was published on Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper, Jabalpur edition
22.06.2025 that Khasra Nos. 9/1, 10/1, 23/1, 168/1A and 182 is ancestral property
of the respondent no.4/original writ petitioner and the High Court had directed that
no third party right be created in the above land till pendency of the application
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
2 RP-1084-2025
before the Tehsildar. It is argued that there is a material suppression of facts in the
writ petition submitted on affidavit making false statements and assertions which
attract the contempt proceedings and initiation of proceeding of perjury against the
respondent No.4 i.e. the original writ petitioner.
3. It is argued that the original writ petitioner i.e. the respondent No.4
herein had initially filed a civil suit bearing No.500-A/1994 seeking declaration
and permanent injunction with respect to suit property mentioned in Schedule 1, 2
& 3 of the plaint which was decided vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2000
declaring that the plaintiff has 1/3rd share in the suit property mentioned in the
schedule. If the schedule as well as judgment and decree dated 10.07.2000 are
seen, then it is seen that Khasra Nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182 are not part
of the Schedule, however, the respondent No.4 in paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the writ
petition has falsely averred that above khasra numbers were owned by her father
and these lands were affected by ceiling proceedings and that she has been granted
1/3rd share in Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182. It is further mentioned
in para 5.4 of the writ petition that challenging the judgment and decree dated
10.07.2000, a first appeal was preferred being F.A.No.678/2000 which was finally
decided on 15.05.2017 holding that the respondent no.4 has 1/3rd share of the
above property. However, it is deliberately not disclosing before this Court that in
First Appeal it was observed that respondent no.4 can later on filed a suit for
partition of her share as per the Rules and based upon the said observations, the
respondent no.4 has filed a civil suit being RCS/A-969 of 2017 for partition,
possession and permanent injunction of the suit property attached with Scheduled
nos.1, 2 & 3 to the plaint and further sought declaration that she be allowed to file
a separate proceedings before the revenue court for possession and partition of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
3 RP-1084-2025
suit properties. The proceedings of the civil suit have been stayed by an order
dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.338 of 2025. Notice
whereof was duly served upon the respondent no.4 i.e. original writ petitioner on
07.05.2025 as it is evident from the postal track report. The aforesaid facts were
not brought to the notice of this Court and not even mentioned in the writ petition.
The writ petitioner has also suppressed the fact that she has filed an amendment
application in pending Civil Suit No.969 of 2017 for adding Khasra Nos.9/1,
10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2025.
Instead of challenging rejection of the amendment application, the respondent
No.4 has filed another Civil Suit No.547 of 2025 seeking 1/2 share in Khasra
Nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182, wherein, he has also not disclosed filing of
the earlier Civil Suit No.969 of 2017, which is still pending adjudication. This
goes to show that there were material suppression of facts on the part of the
respondent no.4 being the original writ petitioner in the writ petition and she has
mislead the Court and obtained an order with respect to a direction being issued to
consider and decide the pending application by the respondent No.3 taking note of
the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Collector within 30 days. It is further
pointed out that newspaper publication shows mentioning of Khasra Nos.9/1,
10/1, 23/1, 168/1A and 182 which are not part of the order dated 07.02.2025
passed by the Collector. Under these circumstances, an attempt has been made to
play fraud not only with the Revisionist herein but also with the Court by not
disclosing the material facts and obtaining an order. Therefore, this review
petition has been filed.
4. On notice being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the
respondent No.4 pointing out the fact that there is no suppression of facts, rather it
is only a direction which was sought to consider and decide the pending
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
4 RP-1084-2025
application before the Tehsildar taking note of the order passed by the Collector
dated 07.02.2025. The Court has observed that opportunity of hearing should be
granted to all the affected parties, therefore, virtually no prejudice will be caused
to the revisionist. There is no order on merits by this Court, therefore, it cannot
said that there is any material suppression of facts on the part of the writ petitioner
in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has tried to justify
his stand by pointing out the fact that he has sought no order on merits in the writ
petition, therefore, it cannot be said there is any suppression of facts on the part of
the writ petitioner. Several other grounds are raised in the reply to substantiate his
argument that there is no material suppression on the part of the writ petitioner.
5. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. If the pleadings of the writ petition are seen, then there is a mentioning
of Khasra Nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182 situated at Mouza Purva Jabalpur
and further prayer is made to issue a mandamus restraining the respondent
No.4/revisionist herein to alienate the property in question. However, the writ
petition was disposed off in term of the submissions made in the writ petition with
a further direction to the Tehsildar to consider the order passed by the Collector
on 07.02.2025. The fact remains that if the order passed in Civil Suit No.500-
A/1994 is seen which was filed for declaration and permanent injunction over the
suit property mentioned in Schedule 1 which was decided on 10.07.2000, then
the plaintiff was declared to be 1/3rd share holder in the suit property. The
schedule appended does not reflect mentioning of Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A,
148 and 182, but despite of the same, it is mentioned in the writ petition that
petitioner’s father was owner of the land bearing above khasra numbers which
were affected by ceiling proceedings. A first appeal was also filed against the said
judgment and decree being F.A.No.678 of 2000, which was decided on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
5 RP-1084-2025
15.05.2017 making an observation that present respondent no.4 can later on file a
civil suit seeking partition of her share. Therefore, virtually there is no declaration
or partition with respect to Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and 182 being not
part of the civil proceedings. Thereafter, she again filed a civil suit being RCS/A-
969 of 2017 seeking partition, possession and permanent injunction of the suit
property attached along with application seeking permission to file a separate
proceedings before the revenue court for possession and partition of the suit
properties mentioned in Scheduled 2 & 3 of the plaint. The said proceedings of
the Civil Suit were stayed vide order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Civil Revision
No.338 of 2025. Thereafter an amendment application was filed in pending Civil
Suit No. RCS/A-969 of 2017 for adding Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1, 168/1A, 148 and
182 which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2025. Instead of challenging
the said rejection of the application for amendment, fresh civil suit has been filed
being Civil Suit No.547 of 2025 seeking 1/ 2 share in Khasra nos.9/1, 10/1,
168/1A, 148 and 182 owned by the revisionist. If the contents of the writ petition
are seen, then there was no mentioning of the aforesaid proceedings drawn
between the parties and outrightly during the course of arguments, a relief was
sought to direct the Tehsildar to decide the application for mutation taking note of
the order passed by the Collector dated 07.02.2025. The fact remains that the
respondent No.4/writ petitioner has never obtained any share in the property in
question, coupled with the fact that the civil suit instituted by the respondent no.4
herein is still pending consideration, no such relief directing the authorities to
consider and decide the application for mutation can be granted as correct facts
were not brought to the notice of this court. Considering the submissions made
before this Court and relying upon the arguments advanced by the counsel, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
6 RP-1084-2025
Court had directed that the authority to consider and decide the application filed
by the petitioner. This is a clear case of suppression of material information from
this Court for obtaining an order. Apart from the aforesaid, after obtaining an
order from the Court, there is a newspaper publication made by the writ petitioner,
again making a false submission with respect to direction issued by the Court with
respect to survey numbers mentioned in the newspaper. The Court had never
directed for non-creation of third party interest for the said khasra numbers
mentioned in the newspaper. Rather, owing to the misrepresentation and
suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner before this Court, the order was
got obtained, which is per se illegal.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah vs Union
of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
suppression must be of ‘material’ fact. It was observed :
“10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the
Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy.
Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v.
B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi
v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 :
(2007) 5 Scale 357].) A person who has a grievance against a State, a
forum must be provided for redressal thereof. (See Hatton v. United
Kingdom [15 BHRC 259]. For reference see also Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.
Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)
11. The court’s jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties,
therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to
justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no
jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not
approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such
relief should be denied is the question.
12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What
would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the
appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for
the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof
would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
7 RP-1084-2025
relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis
between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the
discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it
with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the
hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the
question.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under:
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life
i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam
Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values
in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice
delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and
the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of
the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic
changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the
old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that
those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those
who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They
shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their
goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is
now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream
of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted
hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
3. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] this Court adverted
to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the appellant by
making the following observations: (AIR p.1558) “It is of utmost
importance that in making material statements and setting forth
grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are
inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for
special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds
of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be
unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements
which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal
the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:348548 RP-1084-2025
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and
misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant
may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the
strength of what he characterises as misrepresentations of facts
contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may
come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked.”
4. In Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC
(Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015] the Court held that a party which has
misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be
heard on the merits of the case.
5. In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka [(1991) 3 SCC
261 : AIR 1991 SC 1726] the Court denied relief to the appellant who
had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land
Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the
Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High
Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed:
(SCC p. 263, para 2)
“2. … Curiously enough, there is no reference in the special leave
petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these
orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice
and filed their counter-affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders
have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of
the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this
ground alone, the special leave petitions are liable to be rejected. It is
well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution
is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such
relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do
so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be
dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the special leave petitions.”
6. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] the
Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by
withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned
deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 7. In Prestige
Lights Ltd. v. SBI [(2007) 8 SCC 449] it was held that in exercising
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is
not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who
invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court
without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or
twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be
fully justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton,
L.J. in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB 486Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:348549 RP-1084-2025
(CA)] , and observed: (Prestige Lights Ltd. case [(2007) 8 SCC 449] ,
SCC p. 462, para 35).
In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is
invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts
or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the
court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the
matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to
deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by
deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of
true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly
stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ
courts would become impossible.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K. Jayaram and others
Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others decided on 08.12.2021 in Civil
Appeal No.7550-7553 of 2021 has held as under:
“15. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others,
(2008) 12 SCC 481, it was held thus:-
“34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary,
equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are
issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity
that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean
hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or
suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no
candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is
guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the
threshold without considering the merits of the claim.
35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J.,
in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs.- (1917) 1
KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) in the following words:
(KB p. 514)
“…… it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it
is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes
to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a
full and fair disclosure of all the material facts–it says facts, not law.
He must not misstate the law if he can help it–the court is supposed to
know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant
must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court
enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been
fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which itSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
10 RP-1084-2025
has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.”
(emphasis supplied)
36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising
extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the
conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the
applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or
attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that
ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by
stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you
have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to
deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by
deceiving it.
37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra), Viscount Reading,
C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) “… Where an ex parte application has
been made to his Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court
comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application
was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such
a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, he Court ought, for its
own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to
proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power
inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases
which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been
deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will
be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the
applicant’s affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to
influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows
the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to
leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to
hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only
been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.”
(emphasis supplied)
38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also.
As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must
disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are
against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick
and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or
not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ
jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If
material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ
courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must
disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any
qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
11 RP-1084-2025
39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax
Commrs. (supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with
candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with
“soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an
advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or
misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts
fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the
court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to
prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to
proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court
does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in
its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt
of court for abusing the process of the court.”
16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity
of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more
importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through
different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by
remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings
in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, 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 subjec
tmatter 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.”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav
and others v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others reported
in (2013) 11 SCC 531 has held as under:-
“44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for
adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a
litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making
to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the
order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough
disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and
circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it
has attained finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v.
Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on litigants eschewing
inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3485412 RP-1084-2025
an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows: (AIR p. 1560,
para 9)”
9. … It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and
setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be
taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or
misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the
petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the
confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and
misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the
present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked.
Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The
appellant will pay the costs of the respondent.”
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [(2010) 14
SCC 38] the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a
litigant does not come to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled
to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from
any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC p. 51, para 21) “21. The principle
that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not
entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case,
such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the
petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but
also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The
object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled
but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do
not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of
justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by
suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s)
arising in the case.”
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en passant, in the
order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It
is not for the court to look into every word of the pleadings, documents
and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come upfront
and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis of the
submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it to the court to
determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a
decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must
suffer the consequence thereof.”
Any fact which goes to the root of the subject matter is a material fact and
suppression of the same would amount to suppression of material fact. Where the
party has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
13 RP-1084-2025
material facts, then this Court can refuse to entertain its jurisdiction under Article
226 of Constitution of India and the equitable relief which can be granted to the
petitioner can be refused in terms of the settled legal proposition of law.
11. Normally the courts have heavily relied upon the arguments advanced
by the counsels being officers of the court. It is not expected that they should
make any such argument before the court that will amount to suppression of facts
and misleading the court, but in the present case, the said attempt was made by the
counsel for the writ petitioner, as neither the pleadings in the petition nor the
arguments advanced before the court had disclosed the factum of filing of serious
of civil litigation before the competent civil courts with respect to properties in
question. Under these circumstances, the order passed by this Court, simplicitor
directing to decide the application of the writ petitioner dated 20.06.2025 passed
in W.P.No.19694 of 2025 is recalled. The review petition stands allowed and
disposed off.
12. W.P.No.19694 of 2025 is taken up for consideration.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the
W.P.No.19694 of 2025 is full of suppression of material facts is hereby dismissed
with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) to be deposited and to be borne by the
writ petitioner/respondent no.4 herein in the account of M.P. High Court Bar
Association (SB A/C No.519302010000549, IFS CODE:UBIN0551937, Union
Bank of India, State Bar Council, High Court Branch, Jabalpur) within a period of
seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
14. A copy of this order be placed in the records of W.P.No.19694 of
2025.
15. An application has been filed seeking a direction for initiation of
proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/379 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
14 RP-1084-2025
Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhiya, 2023 against the respondent no.4 for
misleading the Court.
16. This Court by a detailed order has already observed that there is a
material suppression of the facts on the part of the original writ
petitioner/respondent no.4 herein, coupled with the fact that even in the arguments
the said facts regarding series of civil litigation filed between the parties and the
said survey numbers being not a part of the civil litigation was not brought to the
notice of this Court. The said submissions have been placed before the Court
accompanied by an affidavit filed by the original writ petitioner, this Court deems
it appropriate to issue notice of the said application to the writ
petitioner/respondent No.4 that as to why he should not be held guilty of perjury
and playing fraud and misrepresenting before this Court. Under these
circumstances, let notice be issued to the respondent no.4 herein that why the
proceedings 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/379 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Surksha Sanhiya, 2023 be not initiated against him. The said notice be made
returnable within four weeks.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51