Harmohinder Singh Chaddha vs Rajasthan Housing Board and Another

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The order of learned Single Bench dated 10.2.2011, dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner/appellant, is under challenge in this intra court appeal, preferred on behalf of the petitioner.

The petitioner filed writ petition before the Single Bench with a prayer that entire record regarding costing of the disputed house may be called and the respondents be directed to quote fair prices of the house and transfer the possession of the house to the petitioner. A prayer was also made to quash the notice dated 4.3.2008.

A notice of show cause was issued and in pursuant thereto, respondents filed reply wherein it was stated that for the same relief, a civil suit was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed and the said fact has been suppressed/concealed from the court. The judgment and decree passed by civil court had attained finality. Since important and material facts have been concealed, therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts alone. The reply was also given on merits.

Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions of the parties, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing of material facts from the court, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an old person therefore a liberal view in the matter could have been taken by the Single Bench and the petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. He has submitted that merits of the case be examined. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an illegality in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of res judicata.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant in the light of reasons given by learned Single Judge for dismissal of writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the appellant filed a civil suit in the same matter and his suit was dismissed and the said fact of filing of the civil suit was not pleaded in the writ petition and the copy of judgment of civil suit was not annexed with the writ petition. It is settled principle of law that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to a person who has not come with clean hands. Since the filing and decision of civil suit was material and important fact as controversy involved in the present writ petition had already attained finality, therefore, in our view, learned Single Judge was absolutely right in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner on the ground of suppression of material facts. No liberal view can be taken only on the ground that the petitioner is an old person.

So far as the question of res judicata is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that whatever issues which have been decided by civil court cannot be allowed to be re-agitated by way of writ petition before this court again. That apart, the dispute in the present case relates to price/cost of the house in dispute, the said issue relates to the question of fact, which cannot be entertained and decided in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in any of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. The appeal is bereft of merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Stay application No. 12525 of 2011 is also dismissed.