Civil Revision No. 5713 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5713 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: January 06, 2010 Sh.Ashok Aneja and others .....Petitioners versus Jai Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. and others ....... Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the order of learned lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondents against the interim order restraining them from executing the decree against the petitioner. On 15.12.2009 the following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioners seeks time to confirm if the petitioners had filed any objection in the execution application filed by decree-holder Jai Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. Adjourned to December 17, 2009. Counsel will also make available copy of the plaint filed in the present case.” Today learned counsel has candidly conceded that in fact objections have been filed and the same are pending. Learned counsel has Civil Revision No. 5713 of 2009(O&M) 2 argued that the decree obtained against the petitioner was on the basis of falsehood and had been obtained by getting the petitioner wrongly declared ex parte. However, he is not in a position to deny that no application for setting aside the ex parte decree was ever filed. He has placed reliance on S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath(Dead) by LRs and others reported as 1995(1) PLR 293, particularly para 5 thereof which is to the following effect:- “The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence.” The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. 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 to 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.” In my opinion this judgment is wholly inapplicable. In the cited case the question of fraud had been duly established whereas in the present case the petitioner has only alleged it at this stage. Keeping in view this fact Civil Revision No. 5713 of 2009(O&M) 3 as well as the fact that objections of the petitioner are pending, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court. In the circumstances, this revision is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE Janaury 06, 2010 sunita