FAO No.2058 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 25.5.2010. Gulwant Singh -- Appellant vs. Paramjit Singh and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.S.Salar,Advocate,for the appellant Mr.R.K.Sharma,Advocate,for respondent Nos.1,6 to 10. Mr.Chaman lal,Advocate,for respondent Nos 2 to 5. Mr.Vishal Gupta,Advocate,for respondent No.11. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, dated 22.3.2010, (Exercising the powers of Election Tribunal) whereby an election petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 6 has been allowed and election of the appellant to the post of Sarpanch has been set aside. At the time of notice of motion, following contentions of FAO No.2058 of 2010 (O&M) 2 learned counsel for the appellant was noticed by this Court:- “Counsel for the appellant,inter-alia, contends that neither the Election Tribunal has framed issues as required under Section 81 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act,1994 (for short,'the Act') as it is provided that the election petition has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,CPC) nor the Tribunal had jurisdiction to extend limitation for the purpose of filing of the election petition which was barred even after deducting three weeks' given by this Court in the writ petition, which was disposed of on 20.11.2008. Notice of motion for 12.5.2010. Operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed”. Pursuant to notice of motion, Mr.R.K.Sharma,Advocate,has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1,6 to 10, Mr.Chaman Lal Advocate, on behalf of respondent Nos 2 to 5 and Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No.11. Mr.R.K.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,6 to 10 has filed a reply vide CM Nos.13594 and 13595- CII of 2010. Along-with the application, true translated copies of the zimni orders having been passed by the Tribunal have also been produced on record. Certified copy of the zimni orders in vernacular are also attached. Mr. Sharma has submitted that the appellant has deliberately misled this Court at the time of notice of motion for obtaining stay because the election petition was filed on 10.12.2008 which was within the period of limitation. Not only this, he also referred to para 5 of the grounds of appeal FAO No.2058 of 2010 (O&M) 3 in which the appellant has stated that he was elected as Sarpanch on 22.7.2008 and the election petition was filed on 10.12.2008. Faced with this situation, Mr.S.S.Salar, learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the election petition was filed within limitation. The question then arises as to why a wrong statement was made at the time of notice of motion by the learned counsel for the appellant that the election petition was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated at the bar that it was his fault that he had inadvertently mentioned the date as 18.12.2008 which was in fact 10.12.2008 as he was misled by the certified copy of the impugned order in which the election petition has been mentioned as Election Petition No.26/EP of 18.12.2008. On a further enquiry, learned counsel for the appellant passed on to this Court all the zimini orders in vernacular. The Court then asked Mr.Salar as to whether he has reproduced the zimni orders in the grounds of appeal, to which he stated that he has reproduced zimni orders in para 3 of the grounds of appeal. The said zimni orders starts from 05.3.2009 after filing of the reply but zimni orders which were in possession of Mr.Salar starts from 10.12.2008. Photo copies of all the zimni orders in vernacular signed by learned counsel are taken on record as 'Mark A'. Since the appellant has over-reached this Court by not producing the zimni order dated 10.12.2008 which was in his knowledge and possession and obtained stay by misstating that the election petition was barred by time, in my view he is guilty of suppresso veri and suggesto falsi. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs.Vs. Jagannath (dead) by FAO No.2058 of 2010 (O&M) 4 LRs,. and others AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853 that “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 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 holds 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 view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. 25.5.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge