AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 853 ::1994 AIR SCW 243 ::1993 (2) RevLR 481 ::1994 SCFBRC 1 ::1993 RevLR 2 481 ::(1994) 1 MahLR 873 ::(1994) 1 RRR 253 ::1994 (1) UJ (SC) 1 ::1994 UJ(SC) 1 1 ::(1994) 2 CivLJ 114 ::1994 (2) CivilCourtC 13 ::(1994) 2 CivilCourtC 131 ::1994 (1) SCC 1 ::1995 (109) Pun LR 293 ::1994 (1) All CJ 355 ::1993 (3) CurCC 620 ::(1994) 1 APLJ 66 ::1994 HRR 1 ::(1994) 2 LJR 403 ::(1994) 1 Mad LW 21 ::1995 (1) KLT SN 32 (SC) ::(1994) 1 Orissa LR 201 ::(1995) 1 Pun LR 293 ::(1994) 1 Pat LJR 39 ::1993 (2) RentLR 746 ::1994 (1) LandLR 410 ::1994 (1) BLJR 216 ::(1993) 6 JT 331 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): Kuldip Singh, P. B. Sawant , JJ

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.2(2)— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.44— Proceeding in court - Fraud by litigant - Withholding of vital document relevant to litigation - It is fraud on Court - Guilty party is liable to be thrown out at any stage - Litigant obtaining preliminary decree for partition of property - Not mentioning at trial as to his having executed before filing of suit release deed in respect of property in favour of his employer - Decree is vitiated by fraud. Decision of High Court, Reversed. 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. Decision of High Court, Reversed.(Para 7 8) Where a person obtaining preliminary decree for partition in respect of certain property had, before filing suit, after purchasing the property b....