Concealing of facts

2025 PLD 382 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.17

Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014, Sched., Table-III, Clause II

Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199

Constitutional petition

Quo warranto, writ of

Scope

Conduct of petitioner

Concealing of facts

Petitioner assailed selection of respondents on the posts in question on the plea that the same were illegal and made against the Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014

Validity

Writ of quo warranto is not to be issued as a matter of course

It is in the discretion of Court to refuse or grant it according to facts and circumstances of the case

Foremost obligation of Court while hearing a quo warranto petition is to inquire into the conduct and motive of the relater and may, in its discretion, decline to issue a writ where it would be vexatious to allow the same

Court must be satisfied that petitioner is a bona fide and not motivated by any malice against the person whose appointment is under challenge

Writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice and mala fide

Court has to see whether attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object

At the first instance it has to be determined whether conduct of petitioner went to such an extent that High Court should, in view of such conduct consider him to be worthy of being entrusted with a writ in the form of quo warranto

Petitioner after his non-selection by authorities filed successive petitions, and concealed facts regarding filing of earlier petitions and dismissal of one of them

Petitioner also challenged appointments of some of the respondents in earlier petition and did not realize that the order of dismissal of earlier petition had attained finality

Petitioner relied upon unauthentic documents to question appointments of respondents

Conduct of petitioner held him disentitled for the relief sought and instead deserved imposition of cost as he had filed successive petitions

High Court declined to interfere in appointments of respondents and imposed costs upon the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2025 PLC(CS) 1510 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.17

Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014, Sched., Table-III, Clause II

Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199

Constitutional petition

Quo warranto, writ of

Scope

Conduct of petitioner

Concealing of facts

Petitioner assailed selection of respondents on the posts in question on the plea that the same were illegal and made against the Office of Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Employees' Service) Rules, 2014

Validity

Writ of quo warranto is not to be issued as a matter of course

It is in the discretion of Court to refuse or grant it according to facts and circumstances of the case

Foremost obligation of Court while hearing a quo warranto petition is to inquire into the conduct and motive of the relater and may, in its discretion, decline to issue a writ where it would be vexatious to allow the same

Court must be satisfied that petitioner is a bona fide and not motivated by any malice against the person whose appointment is under challenge

Writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice and mala fide

Court has to see whether attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object

At the first instance it has to be determined whether conduct of petitioner went to such an extent that High Court should, in view of such conduct consider him to be worthy of being entrusted with a writ in the form of quo warranto

Petitioner after his non-selection by authorities filed successive petitions, and concealed facts regarding filing of earlier petitions and dismissal of one of them

Petitioner also challenged appointments of some of the respondents in earlier petition and did not realize that the order of dismissal of earlier petition had attained finality

Petitioner relied upon unauthentic documents to question appointments of respondents

Conduct of petitioner held him disentitled for the relief sought and instead deserved imposition of cost as he had filed successive petitions

High Court declined to interfere in appointments of respondents and imposed costs upon the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 CLC 437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 60 &62Election disputeConcealing of factsIncorrect declaration of assets and foreign tripsAppellants / candidates were aggrieved of rejection of their nomination papers by Returning OfficerValidity

Lahore Modern Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited was incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984, with Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on 16-12-2008 and appellant / candidate had about 49% of its shares

Appellant / candidate was legally obliged to mention his shares of Lahore Modern Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited in his nomination papers but he omitted to do so

Appellant / candidate had four foreign trips, out of which three were of UAE and one of Turkey, which foreign trips were declared to have incurred a cost of Rs.1,501,450/- but in her Tax Returns for year 2023, she mentioned her total personal expenses as Rs.2,477,050/- out of which Rs.1,501,450/- were described as having been paid as electricity charges and Rs.975,600/- as household expenses

Appellant / candidate mentioned nothing about expenses incurred on her foreign tours in Tax Return for year 2023 nor described any source in such regard

Such omission gained significance when seen in the context that the information about the cost incurred on foreign trips was required to be submitted according to the Format of Declaration of Assets and Liabilities

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Returning Officer

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 CLD 713 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.39 and 40Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2Passing offInfringement of trade mark and copy rightInterim injunction, refusal ofConcealing of factsPlaintiff company assailed use of trade mark "HAJMOLA" by defendant companyValidity

Intellectual Property Tribunal passed an order restraining defendant company from passing off goods by using the offending trade mark

Subsequently the Tribunal passed another order observing that the injunctive order passed earlier would have no effect because of an order passed by High Court

Intellectual Property Tribunal adjourned that suit sine die till adjudication of matter by High Court

Plaintiff company failed to disclose filing and pending of adjudication of cases in its pleadings especially order passed by High Court, whereby the defendant company was permitted to use trade mark "HAJMOLA" on its products

Concealment of fact as to the earlier litigation between same parties, in subsequent suit, is a conduct which disentitles a party to grant of discretionary relief of an injunction

Complete disclosure about previous connected, related or relevant proceedings and orders is essential when a litigant approaches a Court and unless such non-disclosure can be satisfactorily explained, the claimant should not, as a matter of general principle, be granted interim relief

He who comes to equity must come with clean hands

Plaintiff failed to make out prima facie good arguable case for the grant of interim injunctive relief

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 PLD 184 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.39 & 40Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Passing offInfringement of trade mark and copy rightInterim injunction, refusal ofConcealing of factsPlaintiff company assailed use of trade mark "HAJMOLA" by defendant companyValidity

Intellectual Property Tribunal passed an order restraining defendant company from passing off goods by using the offending trade mark

Subsequently the Tribunal passed another order observing that the injunctive order passed earlier would have no effect because of an order passed by High Court

Intellectual Property Tribunal adjourned that suit sine die till adjudication of matter by High Court

Plaintiff company failed to disclose filing and pending of adjudication of cases in its pleadings especially order passed by High Court, whereby the defendant company was permitted to use trade mark "HAJMOLA" on its products

Concealment of fact as to the earlier litigation between same parties, in subsequent suit, is a conduct which disentitles a party to grant of discretionary relief of an injunction

Complete disclosure about previous connected, related or relevant proceedings and orders is essential when a litigant approaches a Court and unless such non-disclosure can be satisfactorily explained, the claimant should not, as a matter of general principle, be granted interim relief

He who comes to equity must come with clean hands

Plaintiff failed to make out prima facie good arguable case for the grant of interim injunctive relief

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 PCrLJ 1111 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 9(b)Surety amountConcealing of facts

Petitioners were accused persons who sought confirmation of their bail orders on the offer to return benefits availed by them

Petitioners sought reduction in bail bond amount on the plea that no such offer was made by them

Validity

Petitioners who were enjoying ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to them without touching merits of the case had attempted to misguide and cheat the Court by first making offer/statement for confirmation of their bails again without touching merits of their cases on the basis of judgment of Supreme Court and then backed out from the offer by alleging before Supreme Court that such statement/offer was not made by their counsel

Petitioners had repeated their false statement again before the same Bench of High Court

High Court declined to interfere in surety amount already fixed and imposed cost on every petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2018 PLD 38 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 37, 337 & 383Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.195(1)(b)Succession certificateConcealing of factsInitiation of criminal proceedingsPetitioners and respondents were legal heirs of deceasedRespondents excluded petitioners from the list of legal heirs while seeking succession certificate from the court

Petitioners filed application before Trial Court to withdraw succession certificate as well as initiating criminal proceedings against respondents

Trial Court withdrew succession certificate but declined to initiate criminal proceedings

Validity

Procedure laid down under S.373 of Succession Act, 1925 was a summary procedure wherein evidence like a civil suit was not recorded

Court in case of grant of succession certificate, did not determine rights of parties

If any person wanted determination of rights then remedy lay for him in shape of suit under S.37 of Succession Act, 1925

If a person was aggrieved and dissatisfied by issuance of succession certificate he could prefer an appeal under S.383 of Succession Act, 1925

Trial Court only had the prerogative to lodge complaint against respondents in terms of provisions of S.195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. and same could not be pre-empted by anyone

Trial Court in view of summary proceedings which culminated into a succession certificate in favour of respondents had rightly declined to lodge a complaint against them in terms of provision of S.195(1)(b), Cr.P.C.

Lower Appellate Court rightly did not interfere in the complaint of petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 193 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionConcealing of factsEffect

Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of a litigant who had concealed or suppressed a material fact from the court.

2017 CLCN 181 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 7(1)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionConcealing of factsAlternate and efficacious remedyLicense, termination of

Petitioner company was granted Wireless Local Loop License, which was terminated by authorities for non-payment of 50% balance Initial Spectrum Fee

Plea raised by petitioner was that authorities allowed to pay 50% balance Initial Spectrum Fee in ten equal installments

Validity

Petitioner had already agitated almost identical grounds and claims before superior Courts and failed to get any advantageous verdict in its favour

Petitioner by concealment of relevant facts preferred petition for similar nature of reliefs which had already been declined by the superior Courts

Even petitioner failed to produce any cogent material before High Court as well as before other High Court earlier regarding petitioner being allowed to pay 50% of balance Initial Spectrum Fee in ten equal instalments

Petitioner failed to raise any fresh ground or convincing material for consideration in support of its assertions

When alternate and efficacious remedy was already provided to petitioner in relevant laws pertaining to subject controversy and instead of availing such appropriate remedy, petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court with sole motive to defeat and delay rights of respondent, such petition should not be considered compassionately, as per the maxim of equity that he who claimed equity must come with clean hands

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by authorities

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 PLC(CS) 1357 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967, R.4Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionDismissal from serviceConcealing of factsPetitioner was an employee of Rangers who was dismissed from service and his appeal was pending before Service Tribunal

Three years after filing of appeal before Service Tribunal, Authority decided departmental appeal in favour of petitioner

Validity

Authority who decided departmental appeal was not the appellate authority as such order passed by him besides being without jurisdiction and illegal could not be implemented muchless when petitioner had come to High Court with unclean hands

Petitioner had concealed factum of filing of service appeal before Service Tribunal, therefore, he was not entitled for any relief on account of his unclean conduct

High Court allowed petitioner to approach competent forum by way of filing departmental appeal which would be decided on merits strictly in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to petitioner

Petition was dismissed accordingly.

2013 CLC 454 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115, O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Suit for declarationInterim injunction, denial ofConcealing of factsPlaintiff was denied interim injunction by Trial Court and Lower Appellate CourtValidity

Filing of earlier suit was concealed by plaintiff not only in plaint but also in revision petition filed before High Court

Such concealment established that conduct of plaintiff was not above board and she approached the High Court with unclean hands

One who sought discretionary relief was, therefore, required to approach the court with clean hands

One who seeks equity must do equity

Plaintiff was in possession of land in excess of her share and her revision before Board of Revenue was time-barred

During post remand proceedings, plaintiff was given repeated opportunities to present her case but she failed to do so, and consequently her defence was struck off

Plaintiff did not have prima facie case in her favour nor balance of convenience tilted in her favour, and similarly, factor of irreparable loss was also missing

High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere in concurrent orders passed by two courts whereby interim injunction was refused to plaintiff

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.