1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.99 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7801 OF 2008 Sou.Sulochana Hirasa Zad ..Appellant V/s. Shri Rajendra Ramchandra Shinde & Ors. ..Respondents ­­­­ Mr. P. D.Dalvi for the appellant. Mr.V.B.Naik i/by Prashant Kulkarni for respondent no.1. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar i/by P.M.Arjunwadkar for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Mr.R.M.Patne AGP for respondent nos.4 to 7. ­­­­ Coram : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 9th July, 2009. PC 1. This is a very sad case where we have found a lawyer making an incorrect statement to mis­lead the Court. When the matter was before us last time, the learned Counsel for the appellant made a statement before us that the appellant and his well­wishers have paid up the money to the bank entirely. We believed in that statement and therefore, as the property involved is residential premises, we asked learned Counsel for the appellant to take instructions as to whether his client is willing to pay interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser so that we can put it to auction purchaser whether he is willing to 2 take his money and return the property. But now it is an admitted position that even as on today, the entire amount payable by the appellant is not paid by the appellant or his well­ wishers to the bank. The certificate issued by the bank on the basis of which an impression was created before us that the bank has been paid of entirely by the appellant and his well­ wishers was really issued by the bank taking into consideration the amount deposited by the auction purchaser in part. In our opinion, this conduct of the appellant of misleading the Court dis­entitles the appellant to any interference at the hands of this Court. In our opinion, the following observations found in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case “S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRS. And others, (1994)1 SCC 1” are relevant, they read as under:­ “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 6. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex.B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of 3 Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tentamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex.B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. 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.” Therefore, though the learned Counsel asked us to go into the merits of the matter, we declined to go into the merits of the matter. We are dismissing the appeal because the appellant has approached this Court with unclean hands. Appeal stands dismissed. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) ( R.S.MOHITE, J. )