RSA No. 3349 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3349 of 2008 Date of Decision: 24. 10. 2008 Bhanwar Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Smt.Dayawati alias Daya ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. *** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed by a mortgagor against a decree for redemption passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondent-plaintiff had not disclosed to the Court earlier litigations filed by her for redemption and for injunction and on the contrary when those litigations had been referred to in the written statement the same had been denied by the respondent-plaintiff in her replication. He has also urged that in case of Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 1997(1) PLR 553, a Division Bench of this Court had held as follows:- “We are constrained to take a serious view of the suppression RSA No. 3349 of 2008 2 of these material facts as concealing of these material facts, in our considered opinion, tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court. The view we have taken finds full support from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. And others A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 853:1994 (1) RRR 253 (SC). Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others reported as 1994 SC 853 wherein it was held as follows:- “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” In my opinion these judgments may not be applicable in the present case. The judgment in Daljit Singh's case (supra) was rendered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where there is no question of leading evidence and the case has to be decided on the basis of documents placed on record by the parties. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra) what weighed with the Hon'ble Supreme RSA No. 3349 of 2008 3 Court was the fact that the case was based on falsehood. This is not the position here. The learned lower Appellate Court has rightly relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kishan v. Sheoram reported as 2008(1) Recent Civil Reports 334 to hold that there is no time limit fixed for redemption and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harbans Singh v. Gurnamditta Singh reported as 1991 PLJ 312 wherein it was held that the redemption of mortgage is not barred even if application for redemption under the Redemption of Mortgage (Punjab) Act has been dismissed. Thus the dismissal of the earlier applications was not relevant to the decision of the present lis and, therefore, the non-disclosure thereof would not be concealment of a material fact. What has been found against the appellants is that the respondent was a mortgagor and had the right to redeem the property. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 24, 2008 sunita