Chattisgarh High Court
Jaichand (Dead) Through Lrs. (I) ... vs Sahnulal on 24 June, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
