Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Wednesday imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on three villagers from Kupwara for suppressing material facts in their writ petition that a civil court had already passed an order against them in a land dispute case.
The villagers — Farooq Ahmad Shiekh, Showkat Ahmad Shiekh and Ghulam Mohi ud Din of Surigam, Lalpora Kupwara — had obstructed a community pathway passing their ‘shamilat’ patch of land. They had also filed a writ petition against the orders by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and other officers that ordered removal of the obstruction in the pathway.
The case had also gone to the Civil Judge/Munsiff Sogam, which had in July 2024 restrained the trio from interfering with or encroaching upon the pathway.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who heard their writ advocated by senior counsel Riyaz A Jan, found that the petitioners had concealed the order passed by the civil court and, “with a view to deprecate such practice of suppression of material facts”, imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on them to be paid within two weeks.
It said “the petitioners have not placed on record that a civil suit on the same subject matter is pending before the civil court and that an interim restraint order had already been passed on 12.07.2024”.
It noted that the passing of the civil court order was well known to the parties and had also been referred to in the orders of both the appellate and revisional authorities.
“This court is of the considered view that such deliberate suppression of material facts, cannot be condoned by this court as the petitioners have not come to this court with clean hands and have tried to play fraud with this court to get an interim order, more particularly when there was a restraint order against the petitioners for the same pathway,” Justice Nargal said.
He recorded, “what the petitioners could not achieve directly is being achieved by fraud and indirectly by suppressing material facts and this court cannot shut its eyes to such conduct on the part of the party seeking equitable right. Law of equity does not permit a party to secure indirectly what it is prohibited from claiming directly.”
The bench said that although the petitioners have pleaded that initially the respondents have approached the civil court and were granted protection by virtue of interim order dated 29.10.2022. But petitioners have failed to give the details of the said proceedings before this court and have also not placed on record the interim order dated 29.10.2022 referred to in the petition.
Moreover, the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the order passed by the learned Munsiff Sogam dated 12.07.2024 in C.O.S.No.83/2024 titled as Ghulam Mohammad Shiekh and others vs. Farooq Ahmad Shiekh and others on the same subject matter, said the court.
“This court cannot overlook the deliberate and willful suppression of material facts by the petitioners. The petitioners, having suffered dismissal before both the appellate and revisional authorities, approached this court without disclosing the pendency of a civil suit on the same subject matter, nor did they bring to the notice of this court the passing of the interim order dated 12.07.2024 by the Civil Judge/Munsiff Sogam restraining the petitioner from interfering with or encroaching upon the pathway,” it said.
The fact that the civil court’s order was already in existence and known to the parties, and had also been referred to in the orders of both the appellate and revisional forums, shows the concealment was deliberate and willful, it added.
“Such deliberate concealment is wholly unacceptable in the eyes of the law. The petitioners, in approaching this court, have sought to obtain relief by withholding the most crucial facts, thereby misusing the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,” said the bench.
It also criticised the Revenue department, including its commissioner, saying “in these circumstances, it is manifestly clear that the revenue authorities should not have proceeded with the same issue which was subject matter of the civil suit that was pending before the learned Munsiff Court Sogam”.
The orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained, it said, adding the law does not permit parties taking conflicting routes to achieve the same objective, particularly in cases where the matter is directly and substantially in issue before a competent civil court.
