2023 MLD 1611
Art. 199 ---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R. 1 & Preamble---Constitutional petition, withdrawal of---Scope---Second constitutional petition filed after withdrawal of first one without the permission stipulated in O. XXIII, R. 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Maintainability---Concealment of material facts---Scope and effect---Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court at one of its benches whereas their earlier constitutional petition filed before the principal seat of the same High Court was withdrawn by them---Record revealed that initially the petitioners filed constitutional petition at the principal seat of the High Court with regard to same cause and, although the petitioners had withdrawn said constitutional petition, however, the observations recorded in the said order were relevant---Said observations manifested that the first constitutional petition was not withdrawn in ordinary course, rather after being confronted with certain legal infirmities---Thus, petitioners having no other option, sought permission to withdraw the constitutional petition and as such the same was dismissed--- Proceedings in a constitutional petition were to be regulated by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, so O. XXIII was mutatis mutandis applicable to such proceedings---Order XXIII, R. 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, stipulated that if the plaintiff had not been allowed permission by the Court to institute fresh suit in terms of O. XXIII, R. 1(2), he would be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of claim ---Since the previous constitutional petition on the same cause was dismissed as withdrawn so the petitioners were precluded to file the present constitutional petition in terms of O. XXII, R. 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Constitutional petition , being frivolous and vexatious, was dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 100,000/-, in circumstances.
Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Competent Court/forum, non-approaching of---Concealment of facts---Scope and effect---Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court at one of its benches in short span of time after their earlier constitutional petition, filed before the principal seat of the same High Court had been withdrawn by them; and they also concealed pendency of litigation between the parties on the same cause before the Civil Court---Held, that Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court though could not be abridged by a subservient legislation but exercise of said jurisdiction was always dependant upon the facts and circumstances of each case---High Court was cognizant of the fact that such a tendency on the part of litigants was increasing day by day that they, instead of prosecuting their cause before the competent forum, were opting to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without any justifiable reason, which on the one hand resulted in burdening the Court with unnecessary work and on the other hand absolved the respective functionaries/authorities from their statutory duty---Constitutional jurisdiction was always discretionary with the High Court and the person approaching for the said purpose had to establish the negation of his vested rights---Said mandate was not unbridled and the High Court was precluded to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in an omnibus fashion---High Court deprecated that the petitioners had, while concealing material facts, picked the forum of their own choice---Constitutional petition, being frivolous and vexatious, was dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 100,000/-, in circumstances.
Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Concealment of facts---Scope and effect---Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court at one of its benches in short span of time after their earlier constitutional petition, filed before the principal seat of the same High Court had been withdrawn by them; and they also concealed pendency of litigation between the parties on the same cause before the Civil Court---Held, that person seeking indulgence of the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction was supposed to approach the Court with clean hands---It was expected from such person that on the basis of principle of equity, he would not conceal any material fact from the Court---Petitioners had approached the High Court in a very dubious manner, in short span of time after withdrawal of previous constitutional petition from the High Court at its principal seat and without appending the copy of said(previous) order---Petitioners had also purposely concealed the pendency of a civil suit between the parties on the same subject---Concealment of material facts from the Court not only tantamount to thwart but to hoodwink the process of law---Constitutional jurisdiction was a discretionary relief, which depended upon the satisfaction of the Court---Petitioners had not come with true facts and instead had withheld necessary information on extraneous reasons, and non-disclosure of material facts being a sole circumstance was sufficient to disentitle the petitioners from claiming the discretionary relief in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution---High Court deprecated that the petitioners had picked the forum of their own choice while concealing material facts--- Constitutional petition, being frivolous and vexatious, was dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 100,000/-, in circumstances
0 comments:
Post a Comment