Summary
In a suit filed in 1954 the tenant deposited in Court Rs. 400/- on October 1, 1954 The deposit remained in Court upto january 19, 1957, when it was withdrawn. A fresh suit was filed in September, 1955, for ejectment of the tenant.
On January 10,1957, the tenant deposed about the deposit of Rs. 400 but withdrew it after nine days. The suit was dis- missed by the trial court on February 26, 1957, on the ground that the amount required had been deposited by the tenant in Court. The lower appellate court accepted the appeal and ordered ejectment on the ground that the amount deposited 481was not sufficient as Rs. 400/- bad already been withdrawn.In a revision petition filed in High Court, it was contended that the amount of Rs. 400/- was in deposit and at the disposal of the landlord. The High Court accepted this fact but in spite of that refused to interfere in the matter and dismissed the revision petition.In the petition for Special Leave to appeal, the tenant quoted a long extract from the judgment of High Court regar- ding the deposit of Rs. 400/- in court and submitted that the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that as there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had withdrawn the sum of Rs. 400/- the petitioner was not in arrears of rent. Special Leave to appeal was granted, Held that the, special leave to appeal granted by this court must be vacated because it had been procured by the appellant without disclosing all the material facts. A deliberate attempt had been made in the petition for special leave to appeal not only to withhold from the court the information that the amount of Rs. 400/- originally deposited in court was subsequently withdrawn by him, but a serious attempt was also made to create an impression that the finding of the High Court concerning withdrawal was correct.Per Sarkar and Shah jj.-The exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution is discretionary. It is exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases when a substantial question of law falls to be determined or where it appears to the our that interference by this court is necessary to remedy serious injustice. A party who approaches this court invoking tile of this over-riding discretion must come with clean hands If there appears on his part any attempt to overreach or mislead the court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question, of exercise of the discretion, the court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of the appeal,, Per Hidavatullah j--The powers exercisable by this court under Art: 136 of the Constitution are not in the nature of a general appeal. They enable this court to interfere in cases where an irreparable injury has been caused by reason of a miscarriage (if justice due to a gross neglect of law or procedure or otherwise and there is no other adequate remedy. The Article is hardly meant to afford relief in a case where a party 482is in default of rent because he withdrew a deposit lying in court but who cannot, on the record of the case, be shown to have withdrawn the amount. The present case is not one of a mere error in the narration of facts or of a bona fide error of Judgment. It is a case of being disingenuous with the Court by making out a point of law on a suppositions state of facts which facts, if told candidly, leave no room for discussion of law. The appellant, by dissembling in this court, induced it to grant special leave in a case which did not merit It and hence the leave should be recalled.Har Narain v. Badri Das. [1964] 2 S. C. R. 203 and S.B. Shetty v. Phirozeshah Nursservanji Colobawalla and Another C. A. No. 155 of 1963 decided on April 5, 1963, approved.See the full content of this document
Extract
Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi VS. Vasudev Dhanjlbhai Mody
PETITIONER: RAJABHAI ABDUL REHMAN MUNSHI Vs.RESPONDENT: VASUDEV DHANJlBHAI MODYDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/1963BENCH: SHAH, J.C.BENCH: SHAH, J.C.SARKAR, A.K.HIDAYATULLAH, M.CITATION: 1964 AIR 345 1964 SCR (3) 480CITATOR INFO : R 1969 SC1273 (3)F 1973 SC2056 (15)R 1974 SC 950 (7)R 1978 SC 765 (10)ACT: Special Leave- Revocation -Jurisdiction of Supreme Court False Statement made in Special Leave Petition- Constitution of India. Art, 136.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLANT JURISDICTION : Civil -Appeal No. 692 of 1962.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated January 20, 1960 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 139 of 1958.J. P. Mehta, Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi, J. B. Dadachanji,O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.Vithal B. Patel and 1. N. Shroff, for the respondent.1963. May I - The judgment of Sarkar and Shah jj. was delivered by shah J., Hidayatullah, J. delivered a separate judgment.SHAH. J. -For reasons which we will presently set out, special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay granted by this Court must be vacated because it had been procured by ...
See the full content of this document
If you are already a vLex customer, access here