1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Review Petition No.136 of 2021
1. Jaichand (Dead) through LRs
1(i) Rameshwar, aged about 44 years, S/o late Shri Jaichand,
1(ii) Gayatri Bai, aged about 40 years, D/o late Shri Pawan Kumar,
W/o Shri Dorilal Patel, R/o Village Kulba, P.O. Navrangpur, P.S./Tahsil
and District Raigarh (C.G.)
1(iii) Gopal, aged about 37 years, S/o late Shri Jaichand
1(iv) Kamta, aged about 34 years, S/o late Shri Jaichand
No.(i), (iii) and (iv) are residents of Village Parsahi, P.O. Bahtarai, P.S.
Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Janakram, aged 46 years, S/o late Shri Juglal Aghariya,
3. Bodhram, aged 43 years, S/o late Shri Juglal Aghariya,
Respondents No.2 to 3 are residents of Village Parsahi, Tahsil and
District Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Nanbuti, aged 50 years, W/o Narottam Aghariya, R/o Village
Kauwatal, Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Pushpa Kumari, W/o Bhaghirathi Aghariya, R/o Village Mudhpar,
Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
(Defendants)
---- Petitioners
Versus
Sahnulal, aged 40 years, S/o Shri Madanlal Aghariya, R/o Village
Parsahi, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) (appellant in second
appeal)
(Plaintiff)
---- Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners: Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate.
Amicus: Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24/06/2022
1. This review petition has been filed for review of judgment and decree 2 dated 23-3-2021 passed by this Court in S.A.No.279/2011, by which the appeal preferred by Sahnulal - appellant / plaintiff has been allowed.
2. The submission of Mr. H.S. Patel, learned counsel for the review petitioners, is that Balakram (respondent No.2 / defendant No.2 in second appeal) died on 9-5-2016, whereas judgment in second appeal was passed on 23-3-2021 without the LRs of Balakram being brought on record, as such, the judgment is nullity and therefore it is liable to be reviewed / recalled. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Budh Ram and others v. Bansi and others1, Jaladi Suguna (deceased) through LRs v. Satya Sai Central Trust and others2, Gurnam Singh (dead) through Legal Representatives and others v. Gurbachan Kaur (dead) by Legal Representatives3 and Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others4 in support of his contention.
3. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned amicus, would submit that the review petitioners (Late Shri Jaichand, Janakram and Bodhram) and deceased Balakram are sons of late Shri Juglal Aghariya - original defendant and the petitioners herein were aware about the death of Balakram, still they choose not to inform the court when the matter was heard in presence of learned counsel for the review petitioners herein and Balakram on 23-3-2021. Therefore, the review petitioners cannot take advantage of their own wrong, particularly when the LRs of Balakram have not preferred any review petition. Furthermore, even the LRs of Balakram have not been impleaded as party 1 2010 SAR (Civil) 705 2 (2008) 8 SCC 521 3 (2017) 13 SCC 414 4 (2015) 8 SCC 519 3 respondents in the review petition. Mr. Verma, learned amicus, would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matters of Board of Control for Cricket in India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others5 and Ramjas Foundation and another v. Union of India and others6 to buttress his submission. In Ramjas Foundation (supra), it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that a person who does not come to court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on merits of his grievance and, is not entitled to any relief. As such, the review petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned amicus curiae and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the review petition and the annexed documents.
5. Admittedly, review petitioners Jaichand (dead) through his LRs, Janakram, Bodhram and Balakram (deceased) are sons of late Juglal Aghariya, the original defendant. When the second appeal was finally heard on 23-3-2021, their counsel was present before the court and argued on behalf of the defendants / review petitioners herein and did not inform to the court that Balakram has died, therefore, appeal could not be heard, but he allowed the appeal to be heard finally and judgment to be passed. When the judgment was passed in second appeal against the review petitioners, the instant review petition has been filed on the ground that Balakram has died on 9-5-2016 and his LRs have not been brought on record and as such, the judgment is nullity. It is pertinent to mention here that LRs of Balakram have not preferred to file review petition, even the LRs of Balakram have not been impleaded as party respondents in this review petition. In that 5 (2005) 4 SCC 741 6 (2010) 14 SCC 38 4 view of the matter, the review petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong, as review petitioners No.2 & 3 being brothers of Balakram and review petitioners No.1(i) to 1(iv) being sons of brother of Balakram were aware of the death of Balakram at the time of final hearing of appeal, but did not choose to disclose before the court about the death of Balakram and as such, acted inappropriately and have not come to the court with clean hands.
6. This Court by order dated 27-10-2021 directed the review petitioners to file affidavit as to on what date they came to know about the death of Balakram and why they did not disclose the same. Though affidavit has been filed, but the order of this Court dated 27-10-2021 has not been complied with and the review petitioners have not disclosed on what date they came to know about the death of Balakram and why the said fact was not disclosed, apparently for the reason that being close relatives brothers / uncles, they fully knew about the death of Balakram but did not disclose to this Court and allowed the final judgment to be passed in second appeal.
7. The Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation (supra) has clearly held that the principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. Their Lordships further held that the object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which 5 have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case.
8. The LRs of Balakram have not approached this Court and the review petitioners being aware of the death of Balakram did not disclose the same before the court in second appeal right in time and thereby allowed the matter to be heard finally, and in presence of their counsel the second appeal has been heard finally and further, the LRs of Balakram have not been impleaded as party respondents in the present review petition.
9. For the foregoing reasons and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation (supra), I do not find any force in the review petition, it is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side finding no sufficient cause for review of the judgment under review. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma