Lily Thomas vs Dda And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1786 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) 7032/2011

                                           Date of Decision: 15th March, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:

LILY THOMAS                                               ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Petitioner in person.

                    versus

DDA AND ORS                                             ..... Respondents

                         Through:      Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA
                                       Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a practicing

advocate by profession and appears in person, praying inter alia for

quashing of the conversion/conveyance deed dated 23.07.1993 and

for restoration of the sublease deed of Plot No. C-50, Niti Bagh, New

Delhi in her favour. In the alternate, the petitioner has sought

cancellation of the conversion made by respondent/DDA in favour of

respondent No.4.

2. When the present petition was listed for admission on

23.09.2011, the following order had been passed:-

"1. The petition impugns the Conveyance Deed dated 23.07.1993 of freehold rights in land underneath property No.C-50, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi executed by the

respondent No.1 DDA in favour of the respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the sub- lessee of the said plot of land. The petitioner claims to have entered into certain Agreement, Power of Attorney and Will etc. with the respondent No.3 Mr. Davis John and on the basis of which the said respondent No.3 Mr. Davis John is stated to have fraudulently and contrary to the Agreement got the Conveyance Deed aforesaid in favour of his wife respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis aforesaid.

3. Though it appears that disputed questions of fact arise and the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondents No.3 and 4 but it is found that the respondent No.1 DDA had issued a notice to show cause to the said respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis, as to why the Conveyance Deed should not be cancelled. It further appears that no decision in pursuance to the said show cause notice has been taken till now. The counsel for the respondent No.1 DDA appearing on advance notice states that probably no decision has been taken till now in pursuance to the show cause.

4. Since notice to show cause has already been issued to the respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis, need is not felt to hear the respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis before directing the respondent No.1 DDA to take a decision in pursuance to the show cause notice issued, but after hearing both petitioner as well as the respondents No.3and4. The needful be done before the next date of hearing and the decision be communicated and placed before this Court.

List on 15th December, 2011."

3. On 15.12.2011, counsel for respondent No.1/DDA had stated

that though the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 were called

upon to appear before Director (R.L.), DDA on 22.11.2011, none had

appeared on the said date. She stated that when the matter was

placed before the Vice Chairman, DDA for taking a decision, it

transpired that the petitioner had appeared before the Vice Chairman,

DDA instead of appearing before the aforesaid officer. She further

stated that the Director (R.L.), DDA had been directed to issue a fresh

notice to show cause to the petitioner and the respondents No.3 and 4

to appear on 05.12.2011, on which date, the parties had duly

appeared.

4. On his part, counsel for respondent No.4 had stated on

15.12.2011 that respondent No.3 had expired and, therefore, his

name was sought to be deleted from the array of respondents. At that

stage, the petitioner had submitted that a copy of the decision taken

by respondent No.1/DDA had not been received by her. Resultantly,

respondent No.1/DDA was directed to communicate its decision to the

petitioner and respondent No.3 with a copy placed on record before

the next date of hearing.

5. In the meantime, respondent No.4 filed a review application

registered as Review Application No.786/2011 wherein review of order

dated 23.09.2011 was prayed for on the ground that the petitioner

had sought to subvert the process of law and had tried to mislead the

Court while filing the present petition. The conduct of the petitioner

was highlighted in detail in para-4 of the application wherein, it was

stated that in the year 1986, the petitioner had sold the subject

premises to respondent No.4 by executing a set of documents

including agreement to sell, registered GPA, affidavit, registered Will

etc. Thereafter, she had first filed a civil suit bearing No.265/1995

against respondents No.3 and 4 before the Civil Judge, Delhi for

declaration seeking to cancel the aforesaid set of documents by virtue

of which she had sold the subject premises to respondents No.3 and 4.

During the pendency of the said suit proceedings, the petitioner had

approached the Supreme Court by filing an SLP No.25150/1996

seeking identical relief as sought in the suit proceedings. On

09.12.1997, the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid SLP unconditionally.

On 04.01.2002, the civil suit instituted by the petitioner was dismissed

by the Civil Judge with costs.

6. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner had also

filed a writ petition in this Court registered as W.P.(C) No.1247/1997

seeking the same relief as sought in the civil suit. The said writ

petition was dismissed on 15.11.1999 on the ground that the petition

raised disputed questions of fact. The subsequent application filed by

the petitioner for seeking restoration of the petition was also

dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a second civil suit

before the District Judge, Delhi registered as Suit No.10/2002

substantially praying for the same reliefs as claimed in W.P.(C)

No.1247/1997. Vide judgment dated 20.11.2004, the said suit was

also dismissed. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit

proceedings, the petitioner had filed a second writ petition registered

as W.P.(C) No.5826/2004 praying inter alia for quashing of the

Conveyance Deed executed in favour of respondent No.4. The said

writ petition was dismissed with costs vide order dated 16.09.2004.

The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated

16.09.2004, registered as LPA No.323/2005. The said appeal was also

dismissed by the Division bench vide order dated 04.02.2005.

7. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the judgment dated

20.11.2004 passed by the learned ADJ in Suit No.10/2002 by

preferring a C.M.(Main) No.531/2005. The said petition was dismissed

on 25.05.2005.

8. Unfazed by all the adverse orders passed against her, a third

writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2005 registered as

W.P.(C) No.1874/2005 wherein she had again sought cancellation of

the Conveyance Deed dated 23.07.1993 executed in favour of

respondent No.4. The aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed

vide order dated 26.09.2005.

9. Counsel for respondent No.4 states that without revealing any of

the aforesaid litigations filed by her, the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition seeking identical relief as sought in the earlier

writ petitions and civil suits. The detail of the reliefs sought by the

petitioner in each one of the earlier proceedings have been set out in

para-5 of the review application. It was averred by respondent No.4

that the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner in concealing and

suppressing material facts and documents is inexcusable particularly in

view of the fact that she is herself a practicing advocate.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, respondent No.4 had sought recall

of order dated 23.09.2011 as it was stated that the petitioner had

deliberately concealed the true and correct facts which had resulted in

notice being issued in the present writ petition on 23.09.2011.

11. Notice was issued on the aforesaid review application to the non-

applicants vide order dated 23.09.2011. Despite service being

effected on the petitioner, neither did she appear nor did a counsel

appear on her behalf on the next date of hearing, i.e., on 27.01.2012.

On the aforesaid date, after taking into consideration the submissions

made by respondent No.4 in the review application and having regard

to the apprehension expressed by counsel for respondent No.4 that an

order dated 25.01.2012 had been passed by respondent No.1/DDA

which may result in another round of litigation, it was held that

respondent No.4 had made out a case for review and the review

application was duly allowed. It was also observed on 27.01.2012 that

a perusal of the writ petition and the annexures enclosed therewith

undoubtedly revealed that the petitioner had not disclosed the earlier

proceedings and instead had made a categorical averment that no

other proceedings had been filed by her.

12. When confronted by the aforesaid observations today, the

petitioner first sought to seek an adjournment on the ground that she

had engaged a counsel only last evening and he is not present today.

It is pointed out to her that till date, she had been appearing in person

throughout the proceedings and, if she was inclined to engage a

counsel in the present case, it was for her to have done so well in time

and not on the eve of the date of hearing. As a result, her request for

an adjournment was declined. Thereafter, the petitioner submits that

she was not required to refer to or reveal any of the previous

proceedings between her and respondent No.4 as the relief sought by

her in the present petition is entirely different.

13. The aforesaid submission is completely devoid of merits. Merely

because the petitioner has reworded the prayer clause in the present

writ petition cannot mean that the petitioner is seeking a different

relief from that she had sought in the earlier rounds of litigation,

particularly when, a perusal of para-5 of the review petition filed by

respondent No.4 reveals that the petitioner had sought similar reliefs

even earlier but with slight difference in the wording here and there as

also in the suits instituted by her against respondents No.3 and 4. The

present case is clearly a case of misrepresentation, a gross abuse of

the process of Court and a deliberate attempt on the part of the

petitioner to withhold material information from the Court which in

itself disqualifies the petitioner from seeking any relief by invoking the

extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

14. Though an order dated 25.01.2012 has been passed by the

respondent/DDA rejecting the case of the petitioner, that in itself can

also not give her a fresh cause of action to assail the same when the

aforesaid issue had already been adjudicated upon not only in the two

suits instituted by the petitioner but also in the three writ petitions

preferred by her wherein she had suffered adverse orders. Therefore,

any attempt on the part of the petitioner to initiate any litigation based

on the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the respondent/DDA would

be a mockery of justice.

15. Undoubtedly,notice to show cause would not have been issued in

the present petition, had all the previous history of litigation between

the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 been revealed to the Court

at the time when the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. Failure

on her part to place on record all the material facts can only be treated

as deliberate concealment on the part of the petitioner and an attempt

to subvert the process of law. It was incumbent on the part of the

petitioner to have approached the Court with clean hands and fairly

place on record all the previous history of litigation between her and

the respondents and the decisions taken by the Courts from time to

time, and then leave it for the Court to decide if the present petition

could have been entertained at all.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court

declines to entertain the present petition which is dismissed with

exemplary costs of `50,000/- imposed on the petitioner. The costs

imposed shall be paid in equal shares to respondent No.1 and

respondent No.4 within four weeks from today, with proof of deposit

placed on record within the same time. If the petitioner fails to file the

proof of payment of costs within time granted, Registry shall place the

matter in Court.

(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE MARCH 15, 2012 'anb'