Dismissed

Dhani Ram v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2009RFA/3087/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court found the appellant guilty of fraud for executing documents under a false premise regarding his father's death, citing the doctrine of clean hands. Consequently, the principal appeal was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Principal appeal dismissed.

Dhani Ram Vs State of Haryana and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CM No.6287-CI-2008 and RFA No.3087 of 2008

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CM No.6287-CI-2008 and RFA No.3087 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 26.05.2009

¶6

¶7

Dhani Ram

¶8

State of Haryana and another

¶9

. . . . Appellant VS. . . . . Respondent ****

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶11

¶12

Present: Mr.Ashok Khubbar, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL)

¶16

CM No.6287-CI-2008

¶17

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 8 years 9 months and 29 days in filing the appeal.

¶18

On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the State had pointed out from para No.2 of the reply that the applicant/appellant himself received the compensation on 30.8.1996 on behalf of his father and filed the reference before the Additional

¶19

CM No.6287-CI-2008 and RFA No.3087 of 2008

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in the name of his father in the year 1997 by himself putting the signatures/thumb impression of his father on the reference though his father had expired in May 1987. At that time, learned counsel for the appellant stated that father of the appellant had expired in the year 1997 and not in the year 1987. Thus, the case was adjourned for today for the purpose of placing on record evidence if any, in respect of their respective contentions.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State had filed an affidavit of Sh. S.K. Sindhwani, Executive Engineer, H.K.B. Division No.1, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar dated 20.5.2009 to reiterate that the father of the appellant had expired in the month of May 1987.

¶23

Mr.Ashok Khubber, learned counsel for the appellant has not placed any document on record to controvert the statement made by the counsel for the State to prove that the father of the appellant had expired in the year 1997 and not in the year 1987. He very fairly stated at the bar that the father of the appellant had passed away in the year 1987. Thus, it emerges from the record that the appellant had played a fraud upon the Court by putting the signatures of his father on the objections filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as on the Power of Attorney.

¶24

It is now, well settled by the Apex Court in the Case titled as “S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and others” AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853, that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily

¶25

CM No.6287-CI-2008 and RFA No.3087 of 2008

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

¶28

As in this case, fraud has been apparently played by the appellant, the application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed without any further consideration. Thus, the present application is dismissed with Rs.20,000/- as costs.

¶29

The Collector Yamuna Nagar is directed to recover the cost from the appellant and deposit the same in the Govt. Treasury and place the compliance report on the record of this case within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. A copy of this order be sent to the Collector, Yamuna Nagar for due compliance.

¶30

MAIN CASE

¶31

Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal also does not survive as such, the same is dismissed.

¶32

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶33

MAY 26, 2009 vivek

Dhani Ram v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhani Ram v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milkhi Ram Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Milkhi Ram Vs P.S.E.B. and Others

M/S K.G. Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs HUDA and Anr.

Santosh and Ors. Vs Amrit Lal and Ors.

Mohan Dass Vs Hy State

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana