For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya‟ (truth) and „ahimsa‟ (non–violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatama Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life.
I am of the considered opinion that the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the plaintiff regarding the invocation of Section 151 CPC or the stage of invocation for the said provision after a lapse of four months from the date of framing of the issues is totally immaterial for deciding as to whether the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed summarily on account of withholding of vital documents and material facts from the Court.
one which has been held by the Division Bench. I would go a step further to say that the plaintiff is an unscrupulous and dishonest person who has tried to give only selective information in this case and thereby mislead the Court in terms of Chengalvaraya Naidu’s case (supra),which have been upheld in the subsequent judgment of MCD Vs. State of Delhi and Another 2005 SCC 605, make the Court unwilling to exercise the discretion in favour of the plaintiff for grant of that specific performance. If that be so there is absolutely no justification for continuing with the futile trial and then after five years down the line say that the plaintiff is not entitled to a discretionary relief. Thirteen years have already gone by which has resulted in colossal waste of judicial time.
39.In the light of the aforesaid observation,let us examine the facts of the case as to whether the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed on such a ground or not. The area of question purported to be purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant is not in dispute which is 5 ½ acre measuring 26 bighas and 1 biswas. What is in issue is that the plaintiff having purchased or agreed to purchase the aforesaid portion of land way back in 1993 invoked the jurisdiction of Court by filing the suit in 1997alleging that the defendant was not perfecting his title and therefore sought the relief of specific performance. The case which was set up by the plaintiff was that the total transactional value at which the sale deeds were to be executed was `29,25,000/–and the defendant himself had obtained the permission from the competent authority for executing 14 sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff @Rs. 1.90 lakhs (somewhere stated as 2 lakhs)per transaction for a total amount of `28 lakhs while as the actual sale consideration was `1,89,94,791/–. The plaintiff has not only concealed the material facts and the document dated 15.3.93 but has also tried to give false justification for such concealment. The plaintiff ought to have remembered, it was not the defendant but the plaintiff who had come to Court claiming equitable relief so it was his bounded duty to tell the truth. This does not mean that the Court is approving that the defendant need not tell the truth.These facts weigh very heavily against the plaintiff. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the aforesaid amount was not disclosed by the plaintiff as was reflected in the sale deed dated 15thMarch, 1993 at the instance of the defendant himself and secondly a plaint cannot be dismissed or rejected on the basis of the averments made by the defendant in the written statement.
40.It is correct that while considering the rejection of a plaint the averments made in the written statement cannot be seen but that principle may not be applicable in the case of a summary dismissal of a suit by invoking Section 151 in a given case by a party where it is able to show that the plaintiff has played fraud in terms of withholding of documents or material information with a view to score a point not only on the opposite side but has also mislead the Court. Moreover in the instant case it cannot be said that the factum of the transactional value being Rs.1 crore 89 lakhs has been taken from the written statement of the defendant. As a matter of fact, the defendant has specifically taken a plea in the written statement that the transactional value was `1,89,94,791/-or so and the entire sale consideration has not been received.It is upon this disclosure the plaintiff filed the application seeking amendment of the plaint admitting to be correct what the defendant was saying. It has been further observed by the Division Bench in FAO No.103/2008 that the plaintiff has paid the full amount of money but he has not been able to account for the full payment in the absence of the receipts, though the amendments by the plaintiff was ultimately disallowed but it clearly showed that the plaintiff had concealed material facts with a view to score a point over the opposite side and thus played fraud. In my view, the plaintiff has indulged in unscrupulous conduct which cannot be condoned. His conduct has been commented upon by the Division Bench also,which in the ultimate end make the Court to draw an irresistible conclusion that this is not a fit case where the discretion ought to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff, be that at interim stage or the final stage. This is only to keep the stream of justice unpolluted from unscrupulous, dishonest litigant.
41.As the grant of specific relief being a discretionary relief, I am not inclined to exercise the said discretion in favour of the plaintiff in a view of the aforesaid circumstances however hard he may try to justify his conduct by filing applications or submissions, I accordingly, dismiss the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that he has played fraud in terms of the judgments in Chengalvaraya Naidu’s case. All other pending application are also dismissed.