LexDALIP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 111
DALIP SINGH
A
-
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002)
DECEMBER 3, 2009
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Equity - Misrepresentation and suppression of facts, in
court proceedings - By litigant - Effect of - Notice by
prescribed authority calling upon tenure-holder as regards c
declaration of surplus land under Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act - Despite several adjournments, tenure-holder not filing
objection to the notice -
Prescribed authority ex-parte
declaring certain area of tenure-holder as surplus - After
lapse of about six months tenure-holder filing application for D
setting aside the ex-parte order - Appeal thereagainst
-+
dismissed for default - Matter when carried to High Court,
direction to appellate authority to decide the matter afresh -
Appellate authority dismissing the appeal holding that
application for condonation of delay not filed and also in E
application for setting aside ex-parte order no cause was
shown for condonation of delay - Writ petition - High Court
by interim order staying operation of orders by prescribed
authority and appellate authority - On appeal, held: appeal
·~
liable to be dismissed for polluting course of justice by
misleading the authorities and the courts - The tenure-holder F
suppressed the fact of his having received the notice, in
.>
application for setting aside ex-parte order - False statement
given before Supreme Court by LR of the tenure-holder that
he had not received the notice - Tenure-holder also did not
approach the High Court with clean hands making misleading G
statements - The statements regarding delay in approaching
the court due to illness of tenure-holder, not substantiated -
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960.
111
H
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558; Welcome
Hotel andOrs. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.etc. AIR
1983 SC 1015; G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and Ors. v.
Governor of Karnataka and Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1726; S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu {dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead)
B by L.Rs. and Ors. JT 1993 (6) SC 331; Prestige Lights Ltd.
v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449; A. V. Papayya Sastry
and Ors. v. Government of A.P. and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1546;
Sunil Poddar and Ors. v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC
326; K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.
c (2008) 12 SCC 481; G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S.
Patel and Ors. (2009) 3 sec 141, relied on.
R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (1917) 1
K.8. 486, referred to.
D
Case Law Reference :
AIR 1963 SC 1558
Relied on.
Para 2
AIR 1983 SC 1015
Relied on.
Para 3
E
AIR 1991 SC 1726
Relied on.
Para 4
JT 1993 (6) SC 331
Relied on.
Para 5
(2007) 8 sec 449
Relied on.
Para 6
(1917) 1 K.B. 486
Referred to.
Para 6
'
F
AIR 2007 SC 1546
Relied on.
Para 7
(2oos) 2 sec 326
Relied on.
Para 8
..
(2008) 12 sec 481
Relied on.
Para 9
G
(2009) 3 sec 141
Relied on.
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5239 of 2002.
H
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2001 of the High
DALIP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
113
~-
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. A
22790 of 1990.
Shambhu Prasad Singh, Prashante Jha, Ms. Manjula
Gupta, for the Appellant.
Pramod Swarup, L.K. Pandey, S.K. Dwivedi, Amit Singh, B
Ms. Sushma Verma, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Dr. Krishan
Singh Chauhan, K.C. Lamba, Chand Kiran, Kartar Singh, for
the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
c
ORDER
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 D
~
people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted
an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue
.y.
in 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 E
in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed 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. In fast 40 years, a new creed of F
litigants has cropped up. ThosExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.