Concealment of facts

Record showed that on the same date, at 04:30 pm, the accused (since dead) had also lodged a report regarding the injuries he allegedly sustained in the incident

Said report was initially reduced into the shape of Daily Diary, which subsequently led to the registration of FIR, under Ss.324/34, P.P.C, at the same police station

Medico-Legal Certificate of injured accused revealed that the nature of his injuries was firearm

Eye-witness also admitted that the said accused was injured and that it was he who charged the complainant party for the injuries he sustained in the incident

Taking into consideration the contents of the FIR of injured accused, his Medico-Legal Certificate, and the admission of the eye-witness, even for a limited purpose, in juxtaposition with the said factual background of the case, it could be safely concluded that the complainant party of the case concealed the real facts, and that, in fact, it was a case of open gunfight between the parties

Notably, the injured accused also concealed in his report the fatal wounds sustained by complainant, then injured, and deceased

Therefore, it had been established that both the parties attributed the role of assault to the adversarial party while concealing the real facts and attempting to cover up their own role in causing injuries to members of the rival party

Moreover, the case indeed was of cross version

However, the question fundamental to the fate of the case as to which party was the aggressor and which was aggressed upon remained unanswered, as the factum of sustaining the firearm injuries by both sides was concealed

Effect of concealing the real facts pertaining to the injuries sustained by the adversarial party had, on numerous occasions, been considered in favour of the accused

Prosecution had been unable to prove the charge against the appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was aggrieved of rejection of his application to proceed on Haj in the capacity of Moavineen-e-Hujjaj for performing welfare duties on the basis of attaining qualifying marks

Validity

Petitioner submitted application without providing mandatory documents including NOC and medical fitness certificate, thereby concealing relevant facts

Petitioner was employee of an autonomous body which did not fall under administrative control of any Ministry or Division as per Rules of Business, 1973

Petitioner moved application after accepting all terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement and undertook to comply with all policies and instructions issued by authorities

Petitioner failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the advertisement published by authorities warranting interference by High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner asserting himself as a regular and confirmed employee of the respondents ( concerned Town Committee, Local Government) filed Constitutional petition seeking the release of outstanding salaries

Validity

Record revealed that many facts were consciously suppressed by the petitioner including an FIR that had already been lodged against the Petitioner in connection with the theft from the public library

Such deliberate concealment was reprehensible and constituted a grave abuse of the judicial process

It was equally alarming that the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the prior litigation failed to disclose the previous proceedings while the other / present counsel representing the petitioner herein, also withheld these critical facts

Such conduct was entirely unbecoming of an Advocate

Courts rightly repose trust in officers of the court and expect the highest standards of professional candour

Any deviation from such ethical standards warrants serious censure

High Court observed that should such unethical behavior persist in future, the matter will be referred to the Bar Council for disciplinary action

High Court categorically deprecated the petitioner's conduct and the reprehensible attempts to manipulate the judicial process

Thus, present constitutional petition, being tainted by suppression of material facts and devoid of merit, was dismissed with costs.

In certificate filed along with present petition, it was stated to be the first Constitutional petition filed by petitioner before High Court on the subject matter

However this was untrue as earlier petitioner had filed a Constitutional petition before another High Court challenging same show-cause notice which had been assailed in instant petition

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Loan agreement and related payment protection insurance policy ("PPI policy") between claimant and commercial lender (defendant)

Lender receiving secret commission and failing to disclose fact and extent of commission payment

Breach of duty by defendant

Concealment of facts

Whether commencement of limitation period for claimant's statutory remedy would be postponed on the basis that facts were "deliberately concealed" by defendant; whether non-disclosure of commission amounted to concealment, and whether recklessness sufficient to establish requisite mental element of deliberateness

Held, that claimants can bring PPI policy "unfair commission" claims against banks, even after the usual six-year time limit has passed, if the bank has "deliberately concealed" facts essential to the pleading of a claim, which meant that the claimant was unable to bring proceedings within the usual time limit

In this regard, the term "deliberate concealment" means that the bank has kept a secret from the claimant, either by taking active steps to hide it or by failing to disclose it

Words "deliberately" and "concealed" must be given their ordinary meanings

To conceal means to keep something secret, either by taking active steps to hide it, or by failing to disclose it

Addition of the word "deliberately" meant that the concealment must be an intended concealment, whether by positive steps or by a withholding of information, but in either case, where the concealment was an intended result

Recklessness was not sufficient

Nor was a mere failure to disclose, unless that failure was a deliberate breach of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the claimant

Existence and amount of the commission were facts that the claimant in the present case needed to know to bring her claim and, as she did not find out about the commission earned by the defendant until shortly before she issued her claim, her claim was brought in time

Claimant's claim was not time barred because section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1980 postponed the commencement of the six-year limitation period until November 2018, when the claimant was advised that the premium was likely to have included substantial commission

Defendant had deliberately concealed those facts by consciously deciding not to tell her about the commission

However, the defendant's conduct did not amount to a "deliberate commission of a breach of duty" for the purposes of section 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980, as the defendant did not intend its failure to disclose the commission to the claimant to render their relationship unfair within the meaning of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Claimant had succeeded in extending the time limit (for her claim) by virtue of section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1980

Defendant's appeal was dismissed.

During execution proceedings, High Court imposed fine upon petitioner/judgment debtor for filing second Constitutional petition suppressing the fact of dismissal of earlier petition on the same subject

Validity

While dismissing Constitutional petition High Court made serious observations about misconduct of petitioner/judgment debtor who by concealment of relevant facts from lawyers and Courts, managed to file miscellaneous application as well as second Constitutional petition after dismissal of his appeal on merits by Lower Appellate Court and after withdrawal of his earlier Constitutional petition from the High Court by making false accusations against lawyers without any substance

Petitioner/ judgment debtor did not deserve any leniency nor there were convincing reasons to waive off the cost imposed by High Court

Supreme Court declined to entertain request for satisfaction of judgment and decree in instalments, as no such application was filed by petitioner/judgment debtor before Executing Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Where the appellant had concealed the fact of dismissal of his earlier revision petition by the District Criminal Court from the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that such fact indicated the mala fide of the appellant

Appellant had come to the court with unclean hands and was therefore not entitled to the relief sought

Appellant's attempt to gain a benefit or advantage through questionable or unethical means was sufficient grounds to deny the relief requested

Once the earlier revision petition had been filed and the same had attained finality, there was no occasion for the appellant to file the second revision before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs was that the private defendants had no right to enter into agreement or to receive compensation amount from petroleum company (defendant) in respect of un-partitioned suit-property

Trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs on the application under O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, moved by the defendants

Validity

Record revealed that earlier a civil suit was filed against the respondent (petroleum company) and others, which was dismissed almost five years ago

In proceedings of said suit, it had been admitted that the petitioners/plaintiffs had been receiving compensation from the respondent (petroleum company) for more than fifty years

Petitioners/plaintiffs had filed suit on the same subject-matter

Law recognized that the conduct of the party might be such that he had to be stopped from litigating the issue all over again

Such conduct sometimes consisted of active participation in the previous proceedings, which was applicable in the proceedings moved by the petitioners/ plaintiffs

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, had barred the Court to try any suit or issue, in which the matter was directly or substantially in issue in former suit between the parties or under whom they or any of them had claimed or was litigating under the same title in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue had been substantially raised, heard and was finally decided

Court was bound to reject a plaint under O. VII, R. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, where the suit appeared prima facie barred by any law

No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned orders and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court at one of its benches in short span of time after their earlier constitutional petition, filed before the principal seat of the same High Court had been withdrawn by them; and they also concealed pendency of litigation between the parties on the same cause before the Civil Court

Held, that Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court though could not be abridged by a subservient legislation but exercise of said jurisdiction was always dependant upon the facts and circumstances of each case

High Court was cognizant of the fact that such a tendency on the part of litigants was increasing day by day that they, instead of prosecuting their cause before the competent forum, were opting to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without any justifiable reason, which on the one hand resulted in burdening the Court with unnecessary work and on the other hand absolved the respective functionaries/authorities from their statutory duty

Constitutional jurisdiction was always discretionary with the High Court and the person approaching for the said purpose had to establish the negation of his vested rights

Said mandate was not unbridled and the High Court was precluded to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in an omnibus fashion

High Court deprecated that the petitioners had, while concealing material facts, picked the forum of their own choice

Constitutional petition, being frivolous and vexatious, was dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 100,000/-, in circumstances.

Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court at one of its benches in short span of time after their earlier constitutional petition, filed before the principal seat of the same High Court had been withdrawn by them; and they also concealed pendency of litigation between the parties on the same cause before the Civil Court

Held, that person seeking indulgence of the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction was supposed to approach the Court with clean hands

It was expected from such person that on the basis of principle of equity, he would not conceal any material fact from the Court

Petitioners had approached the High Court in a very dubious manner, in short span of time after withdrawal of previous constitutional petition from the High Court at its principal seat and without appending the copy of said(previous) order

Petitioners had also purposely concealed the pendency of a civil suit between the parties on the same subject

Concealment of material facts from the Court not only tantamount to thwart but to hoodwink the process of law

Constitutional jurisdiction was a discretionary relief, which depended upon the satisfaction of the Court

Petitioners had not come with true facts and instead had withheld necessary information on extraneous reasons, and non-disclosure of material facts being a sole circumstance was sufficient to disentitle the petitioners from claiming the discretionary relief in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution

High Court deprecated that the petitioners had picked the forum of their own choice while concealing material facts

Constitutional petition, being frivolous and vexatious, was dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 100,000/-, in circumstances.

At the time of submission of their application forms, petitioners concealed their previous involvement in criminal cases

Disclosure of involvement in some offence was a material fact and it was not expected from petitioners, who were to join police department to hide such material fact

Police official should always be honest and law abiding

It was not expected from a police man to get himself recruited in the department through misrepresentation, misstatement or false statement

High Court declined to interfere in decision made by the authorities

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner had not disclosed in the pleadings the details of any agricultural lands under his possession especially having allotted land from Forest Department in the name of his wife

Petitioner had failed to prove his case and, in fact, had filed the present petition with mala fide intention by suppressing the real facts

Total effect of such acts and omission could not be ignored lightly rather deserved an action so as to discourage such like attempts in future

High Court directed the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to initiate legal proceedings against the encroachers of the Forest lands

Constitutional petition was dismissed with costs.

Judgments/decrees of both the courts below were not immune from interference of High Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction, provided the judgments/decrees were result of concealment of fact, mis-reading/non-reading of record and by not filing the suit with clean hands.

Respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration/perpetual injunctions against his non-appointment while the candidates appointed who were lower in merit list than the respondent

Suit was concurrently decreed

Petitioners exposed the Constitutional petition filed by respondent earlier than filing the suit

Validity

Ground taken by the respondent in his Constitutional petition disposed of earlier by the High Court, was the same as it was the taken in present suit

Respondent concealed the fact of decision in the said petition and points agitated regarding certain appointments were nor mentioned in the plaint

High Court on the basis of inquiry conducted by Additional Registrar had appraised to the effect that respondent was refused appointment on other ground, i.e. respondent was unable to make place in Union Council/District open merit

Neither the respondent had got any right nor his any such right was ever violated rather the respondent/plaintiff had concealed the facts from the court

Concealment of fact was a ground to preclude the respondent from the relief so claimed by him before the Trial Court

High Court exercised its discretion in favour of petitioner

Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances and concurrent judgments/decrees were set-aside.

"Equality of arms" meant giving each party a reasonable responsibility to present its cause in such conditions as would not put one party in disadvantage to its opponent

Said principle was violated in every case where there was a concealment of facts regarding earlier proceedings that had been made apparently for 'forum shopping'

Such concealment/suppression would render the claim/suit/appeal of the concealing party to be void thus liable to outright rejection.

Held, there was no entitlement to government accommodation save in accordance with allotment policy of the concerned government

No provision existed in the Policy Governing Allotment of Residential Government Accommodation, allowing retention of government accommodation till decision of any service appeal against compulsory retirement

Discretionary relief under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, could be provided only when party was able to establish its entitlement to any legal character/right in property

Injunctive order was passed by Appellate Court mechanically without considering essential ingredients governing the grant of injunction in civil cases

Injunctive order was obtained while concealing facts relating to filing/pendency of first appeal which was withdrawn by respondent immediately after grant of interim injunction in his second appeal

Inequitable conduct of respondent disentitled himself for the grant of equitable relief

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer to cancel or terminate allotment or to amend or vary terms of allotment

Scope

Concealment of facts

Fraudulent transfer

Scope

Petitioner assailed order passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby his application for correction in khata, by replacing the name of another with his name, was dismissed on the ground that his application was based on a bogus claim

Validity

Petitioner was a displaced person; a Claim Form was issued in his favour; he was held entitled to be considered for allotment of certain land subject to the proof that he was a genuine claimant but he did not make any application for allotment rather managed an entry in the revenue record

Another person, in the absence of petitioner, managed an entry in the same khata

Petitioner had concealed the fact that he had earlier filed another writ petition for entry in the same khata which was dismissed, as such, he had not come to the court with clean hands

Chief Settlement Commissioner, after consulting the record, had held that no original file of the claim ever existed

Fraud was committed in obtaining the allotment order against the bogus claim, as such, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to reverse the allotment order

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, being devoid of merits.

Plaintiff filed suit for possession on 03-07-1986 claiming therein that the defendant was handed over the suit property for cultivation however he got registered fake and bogus mutation

Defendant filed a declaratory suit on 04-11-1990 for specific performance claiming therein that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell with him on 09-10-1982 and a week or 10 days ago, plaintiff refused to execute the sale deed

Defendant had previously filed a suit for declaration on 07-04-1983 claiming ownership of suit property on the basis of oral sale of the year 1969 and adverse possession of suit property for over 12 years

Trial Court had decreed the suit of plaintiff and dismissed that of defendant

Application for withdrawal of suit by defendant with permission to file a fresh suit was accepted by appellate court

Defendant, thereafter, filed a suit for specific performance

Plaintiff, while referring to Art. 113 of Limitation Act, 1908 contended that maximum limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of contract was 3 years and that agreement to sell contained a period of 3 months for execution of sale deed

Validity

Plaintiff had agreed to execute the sale deed as soon as the defendant provided his 'State Subject Certificate' and paid the outstanding amount

No evidence was available on record to show that the plaintiff had demanded the outstanding amount or the 'State Subject Certificate'

Period of limitation began to run from date fixed for performance, or if no such date was fixed, when the defendant had notice that performance was refused

Period of limitation for filing the suit for specific performance started running from 10 days before the institution of suit

Both parties had not come to court with clean hands and had suppressed the material facts

Plaintiff had admitted the existence of agreement to sell in his written statement however, he had not admitted its execution

Appeal was accepted and the plaintiff was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant.

Plaintiff deliberately concealed the correct particulars of address and order for substituted service was obtained by concealment of facts and mis-representation

Impugned decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation by providing misleading information

Trial Court was kept in dark by withholding material information

Ex-parte decree was passed subject to deposit of remaining sale price within specified time limit

Decretal amount was never deposited within the prescribed time which resulted in dismissal of suit filed by the plaintiff

Ex-parte decree passed in favour of plaintiff had become redundant, in circumstances

Executing Court had no jurisdiction to allow extension of time or execute a redundant decree

Where execution of a document or wakalatnama was denied then onus to prove positive plea of alleged execution would be upon the person who had claimed its execution and raised positive assertion

Defendants had claimed to have acquired information of the impugned decree a week before the institution of present application and same had been reiterated in the deposition on oath

Present application which was filed within a week from the information secured was within time

Impugned ex-parte decree was even otherwise a nullity and ab initio void which was obtained through fraud

Trial Court had rightly concluded that decree in question was liable to be set aside

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was based on mis-reading of record which was set aside while that of Trial Court was restored

Trial Court was directed to initiate the de novo proceedings and decide the suit in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petition was filed subsequent to petitions filed before another High Court and petitioner was party to those petitions before said High Court but he did not mention such fact and had concealed material facts from the High Court

Concealment of necessary facts established bad faith on part of petitioner which was based on mala fide and ulterior motives

Concealment of material facts in arguments and pleadings could not be overlooked

Petitioner did not mention filing of appeal before Commissioner nor during course of arguments he stated anything in such regard and remained unable to counter the objection raised by respondent

Order assailed by petitioner being continuation of order assailed before High Court, High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner contended that he, being uneducated, could not provide accurate date of birth of his family, so entries in Computerized National Identification Cards (CINCs) of his family needed to be corrected

National Database and Registration Authority [NADRA] contended that petitioner was not entitled to any relief as he had concealed the facts from the Court

Petitioner, in the year 2003, provided information to NADRA regarding dates of birth of members of his family and got CNICs

Petitioner, in the beginning of year 2005, applied again for modification in the dates of birth of his children and revised CNICs were issued to him which were accepted by the petitioner

Petitioner had concealed said facts in his constitutional petition

Petitioner having invoked constitutional jurisdiction with mala fide intention, constitutional petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

Department refused to take joining of petitioner and petitioner filed constitutional petition against such refusal which was disposed of with the direction to the department to decide the application of petitioner

Petitioner was summoned for re-measurement of his height along with record but he filed yet another constitutional petition which was dismissed

Validity

Petitioner had concealed facts which could be taken into consideration

Previous wrong decisions on the basis of said concealment of facts could be curable at belated stage

Petitioner had remained unable to prove his case

Person could not have vested right for a post against which he did not fulfill the requirement/ criteria

No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge of High Court

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Residents of the village had filed suit earlier with regard to the suit property but plaint of the same was rejected by the Trial Court

Petitioner had neither mentioned the said earlier litigation in the present Constitutional Petition nor his counsel disclosed the same during course of his arguments

Non-disclosure of earlier litigation was concealment of facts

Such conduct of petitioner was sufficient to disentitle him to the grant of discretionary relief in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Petitioner was bound to show his locus standi and establish his legal right over the suit land

Petitioner had raised disputed questions of fact which could not be decided in constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had nothing but unauthorized possession of suit property

Petitioner had no locus standi over the suit property

Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed in circumstances.

Suppression or concealment of relevant facts is a kind of fraud and has been rightly termed as a jugglery which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction

Frivolous, vexatious litigation based on suppression of facts has serious consequences for administration of justice

Such litigation subverts course of justice for other bona fide litigants by clogging judicial system and give rise to mistrust of legal system it causes delay for others by wasting public time and loss to exchequer and is, therefore, an abuse of process of Court

Court has duty to protect its process from being abused, which is in the nature of fiduciary duty which Court owe towards pubic and bona fide litigants

Obstinate litigants causing abuse of process of Court undermine public confidence in administration of justice and Courts

Being conscious of such onerous duty, Courts cannot show leniency when its process is abused, despite the fact that grace and magnanimity is its essential attributes.