Deliberate Suppression Of Material Information: Karnataka HC Initiates Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Litigant
|The Karnataka High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against a litigant who suppressed material information about a compromise in relation to a property which was the subject matter of the writ petition before the Court.
In a review petition, the Court observed that if a party to a lis secures an order by consent/compromise and chooses not to inform the court, it will amount to a contemptuous act.
The Bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda observed, “In my view, this suppression of this material information was deliberate, with clear intent to interfere with the administration of justice…If a party to a lis seeks a particular relief and during the pendency of this litigation becomes an abiding party in a parallel proceeding, securing an order by consent, and chooses to not inform the same to this Court, the said act would not only amount to misleading this Court, but would also be a contemptuous act.”
Senior Advocate S Basavaraj appeared for the Petitioner, whereas AGA Radha Ramaswamy appeared for the Respondents.
A review petition was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking a review of an order passed in a writ petition. The writ was filed seeking directions to Respondent No. 1 and Tehsildar-Respondent No. 2 to issue computerised khata and computerised revenue records.
In 2001, an unregistered partition-cum- settlement deed was entered into between the children. There was, however, a serious dispute regarding the partition deed. A Memo was filed by the review petitioner enclosing two unregistered partition deeds. It was stated that an attempt was made to create a right by manipulating the partition deed, which was apparent from the record.
The Court, without being aware of this material and the vital fact of the compromise entered into in respect of the said property to which the petitioner was a party and which had a vital bearing on the prayers in the subject writ petition, disposed of the same directing that the request for change of khata in favour of the petitioner was to be considered by the earlier orders passed by the Tahsildar.
“It is glaringly evident that Parvathamma has suppressed a material fact — that during the pendency of the subject writ petition, Parvathamma had agreed for a compromise in the suit that had been filed arraigning her as defendant No.1. It must be kept in mind that the subject writ petition was filed ostensibly with the intent of obtaining an order at the hands of this Court as if the revenue entries were required to be changed in her favour on the basis of an earlier order of the Tahsildar.”, the Court remarked.
It added that the conduct of Respondent No. 1 in suppressing the vital information of a compromise in relation to the property, which was the subject matter of the writ petition to the Court, was nothing but a clear abuse of the process of the Court, which required condemnation in the strongest possible terms.
The Court considered all the facts and circumstances and initiated proceedings of criminal contempt against Respondent No. 1 and also against one Ramesh (the alleged GPA holder), who entered appearance even before notices were dispatched by the Registry and proceeded to file objections supporting the claim of Parvathamma.
“Having arrived at the conclusion that the conduct of Parvathamma and Ramesh is unacceptable, this is a clear case of interfering with the administration of justice and that their actions would amount to criminal contempt. I am thus of the view that criminal contempt proceedings are to be initiated against Parvathamma and Ramesh…Accordingly, I refer this matter to the Division Bench of this Court for initiating appropriate action for the criminal contempt committed by them as provided under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”, the Court ordered.
Accordingly, the Court initiated criminal contempt against Respondent No. 1 and Ramesh and recalled the previous order issuing directions to the Tehsildar.
The Court also imposed a cost of Rs 10 Lacs on Respondent No. 1, who deliberately suppressed the fact that she was a party to the compromise petition in a suit filed by her daughter and ensured that the Court passed an order which was completely unnecessary.
Cause Title: Mr. O.L. Prabhu v. Smt. Parvathamma and Ors. (Neutral Citation:2024:KHC:35390)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate S Basavaraj and Advocate AR Goutham.
Respondents: AGA Radha Ramaswamy, Advocates SR Hedge Hudlamane, Dr.G.Sukumaran and Nataraj Ballal.