HC dismisses plea with Rs 50,000 costs for suppression of facts
24/04/2026
SRINAGAR, Apr 23: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition challenging execution of a revenue-related order, imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioners for suppres-sing material facts and abusing the process of law.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that the petition filed by Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh and others was "wholly unnecessary and misconceived" as the grievance had already been addressed by the trial court. The petitioners, represented by advocate Touseef Ahmad Khan, had challenged an order of the Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam, directing the Tehsildar to implement an earlier order.
However, counsel for the respondents, G A Lone, along with advocate Fiza, pointed out that the trial court had already stayed execution of the impugned order on April 6, 2026.
Agreeing with the submission, the High Court observed:
"Once the execution of the impugned order already stood stayed by the Court concerned, there was no occasion for the petitioners to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court."
The court further found that the petitioners had deliberately concealed material facts, including the stay order and earlier litigation on the same issue.
"Such suppression amounts to an attempt to mislead this Court… and falls within the realm of abuse of the process of the Court."
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, the High Court reiterated that litigants approaching writ courts must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts.
"If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts… the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone," the court quoted.
The court emphasised that suppression of facts is not a mere irregularity but amounts to fraud on the court:
"Any attempt to mislead the court strikes at the very root of the administration of justice and undermines the confidence reposed in judicial proceedings."
Holding the conduct of the petitioners to be "wholly untenable in law", the High Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs of Rs 50,000, directing that the amount be deposited with the Registry within two weeks.
The matter has been listed on May 15, 2026, for compliance in case the costs are not deposited.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|