The Bombay High Court has firmly ruled that a writ petition framed upon false statements and suppression of material facts cannot be considered on the merits, and must be dismissed at the outset. The Court underscored that such conduct constitutes a misuse of the judicial process, noting that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and rooted in principles of fairness, equity, and full disclosure. It emphasized that those who approach the Court must do so with clean hands.
In the case before it, Justice Amit Borkar addressed petitions filed by judgment debtors who were challenging an order of the Joint Registrar, who had refused to condone a delay exceeding twelve years in filing a revision petition against the confirmation of an auction sale of mortgaged properties. The petitioners argued that they only became aware of the auction sale in November 2020, and based on that assertion, contended the delay warranted condonation. On the other side, respondents — which included the bank and the successful auction purchasers — submitted evidence that strongly contradicted that account. They demonstrated that the petitioners had, in fact, sought and obtained account extracts as early as September 2011, and had acknowledged receiving documents that reflected the auction proceeds. Moreover, they produced a letter dated April 2015 from one of the petitioners that expressly recognized the auction.
Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that on September 16, 2011, the petitioners had requested account extract copies from the bank, and on the very same day received them, as acknowledged by the petitioners themselves. This acknowledgement, the Court held, left no room for doubt that they were aware of the auction by that date. The Court further noted that in an April 16, 2015 letter, one of the petitioners clearly stated that the bank had auctioned their mortgaged property. These facts, drawn directly from the documentary record, led the Court to conclude that the petitioners had knowingly made false statements under oath, even though the documents on record plainly told a different story.
Given this deliberate misrepresentation, the Court held that a litigant does not have a right to invoke extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution when material facts have been suppressed or misrepresented. It found that the petitioners’ conduct amounted to an intentional attempt to mislead the Court, and that their excuse — that they only learned of the auction much later — was both unacceptable and disingenuous. The Court observed that when the very foundation of the petitioner’s claim is false, the entire edifice of the case collapses.
Further, the Court laid stress on the public nature of judicial time, stating that judicial resources are a public good, and persons who lie on oath for their own advantage forfeit their claim to extraordinary remedies. It declared that once a litigant hides crucial facts or knowingly makes false statements to obtain favorable orders, the Court cannot proceed to examine the merits of the case. According to the Court, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is meant to ensure justice, not to reward deception or trickery.
Consequently, the High Court rejected the writ petitions at the outset and did not delve into their substantive merits. In addition, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners as a deterrent, underscoring that litigants must act responsibly and approach the Court with full honesty.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.