Pushkaran P.A. v. The Thrissur Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1940** **WP(C).No.19510 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER** **PUSHKARAN P.A., S/O. APPUKUTTAN, AGED 55, PAZHAMUKK HOUSE, MUNDOOR DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SMT.M.R.REENA** **SRIP.S.SUJETH** ## **RESPONDENTS** **1. SALE OFFICER, THE THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.329, THRISSUR-4.** **2. THE SECRETARY,** **THE THRISSUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.329, CIVIL LANE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-4.** **R2 BY ADV.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2018 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.21604 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 19510 of 2015 (K)** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PASSBOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER DATED 26.05.2015. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.06.2015.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bpr** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of July, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** **W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2015:** The petitioner, who availed a housing loan and also a business loan from the 1[st] respondent Co-operative Bank, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 sale notice issued by the 1[st] respondent Sale Officer and seeking other consequential reliefs. 2. On 29.06.2015, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and notice was ordered to the respondents through speed post. This Court has also passed an interim order suspending Ext.P2 sale notice, subject to the petitioner depositing with the respondent Bank 1/4[th] of the total amount outstanding, within six weeks. In the said order, it was made clear that, if the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-2-: stipulated time, the order dated 29.06.2015 will stand vacated, without further reference to the Court. **-** 3. **W.P.(C) No.21604/2018:** The petitioner has filed this writ petition, during the pendency of W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2015, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 sale notice dated 29.05.2018 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Sale Officer and seeking an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on Ext.P2 representation dated 06.06.2018 made with a request to pay off the liabilities covered by the housing loan and business loan availed from the 1[st] respondent Co-operative Bank in 20 monthly instalments. 4. On 29.06.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to respondents 1 and 2 returnable within three weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 3[rd] respondent Joint Registrar. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the total overdues as on that date comes around Rs.9,00,000/-, this Court ordered that W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-3-: confirmation of sale, if any, conducted pursuant to Ext.P1 sale notice shall be deferred for a period of one month on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the respondent Bank within two weeks. 5. On 26.07.2018, when W.P.(C) No.21604 of 2018 came up for consideration, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent Bank that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2015 is pending consideration and that, it was without disclosing the pendency of that writ petition that the petitioner moved W.P.(C) No.21604 of 2018. Accordingly, both writ petitions were ordered to be listed today for further consideration. 6. Heard the learned counsel who represents the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2015 and also the learned counsel who represents him in W.P.(C) No.21604 of 2018. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing in the respective writ petitions for the 1[st] respondent Bank and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-4-: the 3[rd] respondent Joint Registrar in W.P.(C) No.21604 of 2018. 7. The learned counsel who represents the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2015 would submit that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated in the interim order of this Court dated 29.06.2015, whereby the operation of Ext.P2 sale notice was suspended subject to the petitioner depositing with the respondent Bank 1/4[th] of the total amount outstanding, within six weeks. 8. The learned counsel who represents the petitioner in W.P(C) No.21604 of 2018 would submit that, it was without disclosing the pendency of W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2015 that, the very same petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner may be permitted to pay off the entire dues in monthly instalments, within a reasonable time. 9. The learned counsel who represents the 1[st] respondent Bank in W.P.(C) No.21604 of 2018, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner, who availed a W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-5-: housing loan and also a business loan from the 1[st] respondent Bank, has not chosen to make any remittance whatsoever from 13.07.2013, in respect of the housing loan and no remittance after 15.03.2013 in respect of the business loan. The learned counsel would also submit that, despite the interim order of this Court dated 29.06.2018 in W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2015, the petitioner has not chosen to comply with the condition stipulated in that order. The learned counsel would point out that a copy of the interim order granted by this Court dated 29.06.2018 in W.P.(C) No.21604 of 2018 was never produced before the 1[st] respondent Bank despite the fact that sale in terms of Ext.P1 sale notice was scheduled to be held on 29.06.2018. The learned counsel would also point out that, in terms of Ext.P1 sale notice, the sale of the property offered by the petitioner as security was conducted on 29.06.2018 and the confirmation of sale is pending consideration. 10. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that, despite W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-6-: the indulgence shown by this Court in the interim order dated 29.06.2015 in W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2015, the petitioner has not chosen to comply with the condition stipulated in that order by depositing 1/4[th] of the total amount outstanding. It was during the pendency of that writ petition, that the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.21604 of 2018, without disclosing the pendency of that writ petition and also non-compliance of the condition stipulated in the interim order granted by this Court on 29.06.2015. Even after obtaining the interim order in W.P. (C) No.21604 of 2018, on 29.06.2018, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within two weeks, he has not chosen to comply with that condition. Moreover, as submitted by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent Bank, the petitioner has not even produced the copy of the said interim order before the 1[st] respondent Bank. 11. In **Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995 (3) SCC 757)** , the Apex Court held that filing of W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-7-: false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a Court of law. The relevant portion of paragraph 38 of the said judgment reads as follows : “ **38.** Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or tend to candalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any Court : (2) prejudice or interfere or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) Interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceeding amounts W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-8-: to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceeding not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any Court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evident in a Court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clean and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-9-: can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995 (1) SCC 421 : 1994 AIR SCW 4994) the respondents produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. Brother Hansaria, J. speaking for the Bench observed: (at p.4995, of AIR) “the stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court's atmosphere may give vitaility to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceeding; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.” W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-10-: ## 12. In **Muthu Karuppan V. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi** **(2011 (5) SCC 496)** the Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In **Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs. BOC India Ltd. (2016 (3) SCC 70)** , the Apex Court observed that though the observation in **Muthu Karuppan's case (supra)** was made in the context of contempt of court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred to _supra_ , the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs sought for in these writ petitions. The petitioner, who has not chosen to comply with the conditional orders granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19150 of 2015 and 21604 of 2018, and who filed W.P. (C) No.21604 of 2018 suppressing material facts from the notice of this Court, is not entitled for any discretionary reliefs under Article 226 of the Constructionist of India. 14. In the result, both writ petitions are dismissed, W.P.(C) Nos.19510 of 2015 & 21604 of 2018 :-11-: imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the 1[st] respondent Bank, within two months from the date of this judgment. In case of any default on the part of the petitioner in remitting the amount of cost, it would be open to the 1[st] respondent Bank to recover the same, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this judgment till realisation, from the petitioner and his assets, in accordance with law. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE