ORDER DR. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant-Delhi Development Authority from giving effect to the letter dated 17.8.1995 issued by it cancelling the allotment and lease of the land of the plaintiff-society at Sector-C, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, and also for a decree not to dispossess the plaintiff-society from the land in question.
2. A copy of the letter dated 17.8.1995 is annexed as'Annexure-L' to the plaint. By the said letter, the plaintiff-society was informed that the reply of the plaintiff-society showing cause as to why the lease/allotment of the land allotted to the plaintiff-society should not be cancelled due to violation of Clause II(13) of the lease deed by renting out the building to a third party for commercial use was examined and the same was not found satisfactory and accordingly the decision of the defendant authority was intimated to the plaintiff cancelling the lease/allotment of the aforesaid land allotted to the plaintiff-society.
3. It may be mentioned herein that as against the show cause notice dated 3.2.1995 issued by the defendant-authority to the plaintiff-society, a suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi. A copy of the said plaint is also placed on record. In the said suit, the plaintiff sought for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from cancelling allotment of the land as well as lease of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff and also restraining the defendant from taking any action for cancellation of the land/lease or re-entering the same with cost. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff also filed an application seeking for interim injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding to cancel the said lease. The Civil Judge, Delhi, however, rejected the prayer for grant of ad interim temporary injunction as against which an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff which was also dismissed as against which Civil Revision was preferred by the plaintiff which is pending disposal in this Court.
4. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 31.8.1995 when summons were directed to be issued and in the injunction application filed by the plaintiff, an order of ex parte injunction was passed restraining the defendant from taking any further action as per their letter of cancellation of allotment/lease of land dated 17.8.1995 which was received by the plaintiff on 30.8.1995. In the said injunction application filed by the plaintiff, reply was filed by the defendant and the said application is also pending disposal in this Court. A number of other interim applications came to be filed in this Court which are pending disposal. Said similar applications are I.A. Nos. 9048/1995, 2697/1996, 12254/1996, 1164/1997, 1697, 1680/1998, 2061/1999 and 464/1999.
5. In I. A. No. 1164/1997, the plaintiff has sought for a direction to the defendant, directing them to allow the plaintiff change of user of the premises in dispute. As against the aforesaid application, a reply has been filed by the defendant contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts in the present suit and, therefore, not only the injunction application is liable to be dismissed, but, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed in view of suppression and concealment of material and relevant facts by the plaintiff in the present suit. It is stated that the plaintiff filed an earlier suit for injunction against the defendant seeking for a decree for permanent injunction against the show cause notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority, which was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi. The injunction prayed for in the said suit was rejected by the Trial Court and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed as against which Civil Revision filed in the High Court is pending. It is stated that the aforesaid facts were suppressed in the present suit by the plaintiff. In this connection, reference was made to the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff by the counsel appearing for the defendant.
6. In paragraph 26 of the plaint of the present suit, it was stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff-society challenged the show cause notice dated 3.2.1995 received on 9.3.1995 before the Civil Judge, Delhi, and filed a suit for permanent injunction which is pending in the Court of the said Civil Judge, Delhi, as against defendant-Delhi Development Authority, which still has to be finally adjudicated upon.
7. I have carefully perused the statements and averments made in the plaint of the present suit and on careful perusal thereof, I find that no mention has been made by the plaintiff in the said suit about the filing of the interim injunction application by the plaintiff in the earlier suit filed. The fact that the prayer for issuance of interim injunction against the defendant was rejected by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court was not disclosed in the plaint of the present suit.
8. All the aforesaid pending applications were listed before me for arguments. The counsel for the defendant drew my attention to the averments made in the reply to the application registered as I.A. No. 1164/1997 and submitted that not only the injunction application, but the suit itself filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view of suppression and concealment of material facts by the plaintiff in the present suit.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff as also the learned counsel appearing for the defendant on the aforesaid issue and I propose to dispose of the said objection raised on behalf of this defendant by this order.
10. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that no issue has been framed so far in the suit and, therefore, the defendant cannot be permitted to argue the issue with regard to the alleged suppression and concealment of material facts, except by moving a separate application or getting an issue framed in respect of the same. He further submitted that the defendant has not filed any applicationso far raising the issue that the plaintiff has not disclosed in the plaint about the disposal of the said application on 9.5.1995 in Suit No. 66/1995 pending in the Court of Civil Judge Besides, according to him both the suits are not similar which would be apparent from the pleadings of the respective suit. He also submitted that in view of the changed circumstances and vacation of the suit premises by the tenant who was using it for commercial purpose, the allegation of misuser/violation of Clause II(13) of the lease dated 27.8.1993 is no longer existing and, therefore, the defendant is required to re-consider the order of cancellation of the lease taking note of the changed circumstances.
It was also submitted by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the plaintiff in the present suit had challenged the order dated 17.8.1995 cancelling the allotment of lease of the land in dispute with a further prayer not to dispossess the plaintiff-society from the land in dispute whereas, in the earlier suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi, the plaintiff based its plaint mainly on the show cause notice dated 27.9.1994 and, therefore, cause of action in both, the suits are different and there being no identity of issues and causes of action and the same being differ-
ent, the two suits are different and, therefore, the allegation of suppression and concealment of material facts is mis-placed and non-existent.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant took me through the pleadings of the parties in both the suits. Counsel for the defendant specifically drew my attention to paragraph 26 of the plaint on the basis of which the present suit was instituted. Counsel for the defendant submitted that in paragraph 26, the plaintiff has only mentioned about the filing of the suit as against the show cause notice dated 3.2.1995 suppressing and concealing the very material fact that the interim injunction sought for as against the aforesaid show cause notice dated 3.2.1995 was rejected by the Civil Judge, Delhi, and that the appeal preferred as against the said order was also dismissed as against which the Civil Revision filed in this Court is pending. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant relied upon the ration of the decision in Satish Khosla Vs. M/s. Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. and another; . Counsel also relied upon the ratio and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath and others; , to which reference was also made by the Division Bench of this Court.
12. In the light of the respective submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties.
13. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff as against the order dated 17.8.1995 passed by the defendant-Delhi Development Authority cancelling the allotment and lease of the land of the plaintiff-society, which is the suit property. The aforesaid letter of cancellation was preceded by a show cause notice dated 3.2.1995 issued by the defendant asking the plaintiff-society to show cause as to why lease/allotment of land allotted to the plaintiff-society should not be cancelled due to violation of Clause II(13) of the lease deed by renting the building to a third party for commercial use. As against the aforesaid show cause notice, the plaintiff filed a suit being Suit No. 66/1995 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from cancelling allotment of the land and the lease of the said suit property. The interim application filed by the plaintiff in the said suit was, however, dismissed by the Civil Judge as against which an appeal was preferred, which also came to be dismissed. A Civil Revision filed as against the said order is pending disposal in this Court. The aforesaid facts relating to disposal of the injunction application filed by the plaintiff are very material and relevant and were necessarily equired to be mentioned in the plaint filed in the present suit when the plaintiff mentioned about the filing of a suit in this Court as against the aforesaid show cause notice.
In this connection, reference may be made to the decision in Satish Khosla (supra) wherein, the Division Bench of this Court held that by not mentioning anything about the Court having not granted any stay in similar circumstances in favour of the respondent in the earlier suit, the respondent had not only suppressed material facts from the Court, but, had also tried to over-reach the Court.
14. I have carefully perused the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision by the Division Bench of this Court and on perusal thereof, I find that the facts of that case and the present case are almost identical. In the said proceedings also two suits came to be filed by the plaintiff. In the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff, the Court did not grant any stay in its favour whereas, in the second case, the plaintiff did not mention and disclose to the Court about the rejection of the prayer for stay in its favour. The facts, therefore, in the present suit are identical and similar to that of the said case. In paragraph 14, the Division Bench of this Court posed a question as to whether it was not obligatory on the part of the respondent to disclose to the court that in an earlier suit filed by it, the Court had not granted any stay in its favour and if on such a disclosure having been made the Court still granted stay in favour of the re-
spondent, it could be said that the respondent had not concealed any mate-rial fact from the Court? The Division Bench also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) wherein, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Courts of Law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and that one who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. In the said decision, it was held that it could be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and that he could be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. It was further held thus:-
"A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party".
In the said decision it was also held that by withholding the plaint d the application in the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing to the Court about the proceedings in the earlier suit and the same having not been granted to it, the plaintiff had tried to get an advantage from the Court and was, therefore, guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the respondent.
15. In fact, it was held by the Division Bench that the respondent had not come to the Court with clean hands and had also suppressed material facts from the Court with a view to gain advantage in the second suit, which amounted to over-reaching the Court and in that view of the matter, the Division Bench directed for dismissal of the suit itself.
16. The principles laid down in the said case and the ratio of the decision, in my considered opinion, are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The plaintiff while filing the present suit did not disclose to the Court about the plaint and the application in the earlier suit and also did not disclose to the Court about the proceedings in the earlier suit, particularly, the fact of rejection of the prayer for interim injunction and dismissal of the appeal therefrom to the Court. The plaintiff did not disclose to the Court either in the plaint or in the application as to what had transpired in the Court on the dates when the said suit was fixed, nor it was disclosed to the Court that injunction had not been granted in its favour by the Court and the relief claimed in the application in the earlier suit was almost similar to the relief as claimed in the present suit for the earlier suit was based on the show cause notice issued to the plaintiff whereas, the present suit is based on the final notice issued to the plaintiff cancelling the lease.
17. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the plaintiff did not come to this Court with clean hands and has also suppressed material facts from this Court with a view to gain advantage in the second suit and this is clearly over-reaching the Court. In coming to the aforesaid conclusions, I am fortified by the decision of the Division Bench in Satish Khosla (supra). Thus, an attempt has been made by the plaintiff to over-reach the Court and the plaintiff has played fraud upon the Court as well as upon the opposite party and thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff itself is liable to be dismissed, in view of suppression and concealment of material facts by the plaintiff and his failure to come to the Court with clean hands.
18. The submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the subject matter of the two suits were not identical and, therefore, there was no suppression of material facts is also baseless. In the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi, the relief sought for in the plaint was for passing a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from cancelling allotment of land as well as the lease of the suit property. In the present suit, the relief sought for by the plaintiff is also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from giving effect to the letter dated 17.8.1995 issued by the defendant cancelling the allotment of land as well as the lease. The reliefs sought for in both the suits, therefore, are identical and almost similar. Even otherwise, the two suits relate to the same suit property and, therefore, all material and relevant facts were to be disclosed in the present suit filed by the plaintiff including the fact of rejection of the prayer of interim injunction by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
19. The other submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the objection/issue regarding alleged suppression of material facts cannot be considered by Court unless the same is specifically raised by way of an application is also without any merit. The defendant has raised the issue in the pleadings filed by way of reply and on the basis thereof, the ourt is competent to decide the issue as the same relates to the conduct of the parties in approaching the Court, which goes to the root of the matter.
20. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the suit and the injunction application filed by the plaintiff stand dismissed for suppression and concealment of material facts. Parties shall bear their own costs.