Kanchan Kapoor vs Dda
1999 Latest Caselaw 587 Del

ORDER

C.M. No. 2070/99 and L.P.A. NO. 289/99

1. This Appeal is against the Order dated 19th July, 1999 by which the Writ Petition has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of playing a fraud on the Court as well as the opposite party. It is held that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as there was deliberate concealment with a view to misleading the Court. A notice dated 9th June, 1997 issued by the Delhi Development Authority to the petitioner was suppressed. It was claimed that such a notice was never received. This false claim was made because if it was shown that such a Notice was issued, then the petitioner would have had no case. The appellant got caught out because it was shown to the court that that Notice had been replied to by the Appellant by a letter dated 30th September, 1997.

2. Before us also the Appellant is not being honest. It is even now being submitted that no Notice dated 9th June, 1997 had been received. It is submitted that a copy of a Notice dated 9th August, 1997 was received alongwith another Notice dated 23rd April, 1999. It was claimed that even this Notice dated 9th August, 1997 had not been received earlier.

3. Even today the Appellant has in her possession, not a copy but the original of the Notice issued in 1997. We have seen that original Notice. It is clear that the date of the Notice was 9th June, 1997. The "6" has visibly been changed to "8" Respondents copy of this Notice shows that the date was 9th June, 1997. This Notice was signed by Respondents Officer on 6th June, 1997 and issued on 9th June, 1997. Appellant has by letter dated 30th September 1997 replied to a Notice dated 6th June, 1997. No explanation could be given as to which was the Notice to which reply dated 30th September, 1997 was sent. Appellant could not produce any other Notice dated 6th June, 1997. It is clear that the reply was in fact to the Notice dated 9th June, 1997 which had been signed on 6th June, 1997. This Notice puts Appellant out of Court. Hence the attempt to suppress it. Parties who approach Courts with unclean hands are not entitled to any relief.

4. In our view, the Learned Single Judge was right in refusing reliefs and dismissing the Petition.

5. We see no reason to interfere.

6. Appeal stands dismissed.