J.C. SHAH JJ.) versus VASUDEV DHANJIBHAI MODY

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 01-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
Union of India 
v. 
Ram Charan 
ROghUb,,, D(Jyal J. 
196S 
May 1. 
,
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
·
the limitation to start from the date of the appel-
lant's knowledge thereof. The stand taken. by the 
appellant was absolutely unjustified and betrayed 
complete lack of knowledge of the simple provision of 
the Limitation Act. In these circumstances, the High 
Court cannot be said to have taken an erroneous view 
.about the appellant's not establishing sufficient ground 
for not making 
an applicatiun to bring on record 
the · representatives of the 
deceased 
respondent 
within time or for not making an application to set 
aside the abatement within time. 
We, therefore, see no force in this appeal and 
dismiss it with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
RAJABHAI ABDUL REHMAN MUNSHI 
v. 
VASUDEV DHANJIBHAI MODY 
(A. K. SARKAR, 
.l\'.{. 
HIDAYATULLAH 
and J.C. SHAH JJ.) 
_87;ecial Leave-Revocation-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-
Fal11.e Statement made in Special Leave Petition-Constitution. of 
India. Art, 136. 
In a .suit filed in l 9j4-
teriant deposited in Court 
Rs. 400/- on October I, 1954. The deposit remained in C•>urt 
uptojanuary 19, 1957, when it was withdrawn. 
A fresh suit 
was filed in SeptP.mber, 1955, for ejectment of the'.:enant. On 
janoary 10,1957, the tenant deposed about the deposit of 
Rs. 400/· but \Vlthdrew it afrer nine days. The suit was dis· 
miss(d by the trial court on Fc:brua.ry 26, l9j7, on the ground 
that tl1e am·>unt required had been deposited by the tenant in 
Cciurt. The 10,ver appe\l'.lte court accepted the .appeal and 
ordered ejectment on the ground that the . amount deposited 
 1 i I 
l 
I I 
I 
I 
3 S.C.R; 
St:JPREl\iE COURT REPORTS 
481 
\ \ 
J 
was not sufficient as Rs. 400/· had already been withdrawn. In 
a revision petition filed in High Court, it was contended that 
the amount of Rs. 400/- was in deposit and at the disposal of 
the landlord. The High Court accepted this fact but in spite 
of that refused to interfere in the matter and dismissed the 
revision pctitioi:. 
-In the pctitiM for Special Leave to appeal, the tenant 
quoted a Jong extract from the judgment of High Court regar-
ding the depcsit of Rs. 400/- in court and submitted that the 
High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that as 
·there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had 
withdrawn the sum of Rs. 400/- the petitioner was not in 
arrears of rent. Special Leave to appeal was granted. 
BeU that the special leave to appeal granted - by- this -
rourt must be vacated because it had been procured' by -the 
appellant without disclosing all the material facts. A delibc- -
rate attempt had been made in the petition for . special leave to 
appeal not c:;nly to withhold from the court the information that 
the amount of Rs. 400/- originally deposited in court ·was 
subil<Xluently withdrawn by him, but a serious attempt was 
also made to create an impression that the finding of the High 
_ Court concerning withdrawal was correct. 
Pv'Sark3.r and Shah JJ.-The exercise of jurisdiction 
under . Art. 136 of ·the Coll3tit1>1ion is .discretionary. It is 
excitised sparingly and in exceptional cases when a substantial 
question of law falls to be determined or where it appears to 
the a'mrt that interference by this court is ne:essary to remedy 
·serious injustite. A party who approaches this court invoking 
the oercise of thi•-over-riding discretion must come .with clean 
hands. If there appears on hi> part any attempt to overreach 
or mislead the court by false or untrue statements or by with· 
holding true information which would have a bearing on the 
que<tion of =ise of the discretion, the court would be justi-
fied in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion 
has been exercfaed in revoking the leave to appeal granted even 
at the time of hearing of the appeal. 
Ptr Hidayatullah J. -The powers exerchab)e by thfa 
court under Art. 136 of the Constitution are not in the nature 
of a general appeal. They enable this court to interfere in 
case• where an irreparable injury has been caused by reason of 
a miscarriage of justice due to a gross . neglect of law. or proce-. 
dure or otherwise and there i< no other adequate remedy •. The 
Article is hardly meant to afford relief in a case where a party 
1961--
·Rajahhai 
, &hman 
. 
.Y. 
· V asuie1J Dhanjihh&i 
Mody 
-· 
JMJ 
IWNo M..W 
v. 
v ...... DUrtjiilrlli 
MMy 
482 
SUPREME COURt REPORTS [1964] vot.. 
i• in default of r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.