http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: DR. VIJAY KUMAR KATHURIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1983

BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION:  1983 SCR  (2)1037        1983 SCC  (3) 333  1983 SCALE  (1)580

ACT:      Supreme Court  Rules, 1966, order XLI, Rule 2 read with Order XLVII,  Rule 6  and Order XVI, Rule 4 Special Leave to appeal and interim orders of status quo ante, as on the date of filing  obtained by  false representation to the Court-By reason of  such conduct not only the special leave petitions should be  dismissed and  the interim  order, cancelled, but costs should be awarded under Order XLI, Rule 2.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioners,  filed two petitions for special leave to appeal  and also  obtained interim  orders of  status quo ante as  on 1.10.82 averring that they were continuing their studies  as   post-graduate  students  of  Medical  College, Rohtak. Since  a dispute  was raised whether the provisional admissions granted  to them  had continued  till October  1, 1982 or were cancelled long prior to that date, an issue was sent to the District Judge, Rohtak for inquiry and a finding thereon. The  said  report  contained  not  only  a  finding against the  petitioners, but  also  revealed  how  the  two petitioners and  their counsel have indulged in telling lies and  making   reckless   allegation   of   fabrication   and manipulation of  records against the college authorities and how in fact the boot was on their leg.      Dismissing the petitions, the Court ^      HELD:  (1)   It  is  clear  from  the  report  that  on 1.10.1982, the  petitioners made  a false  representation to the Supreme Court that they were continuing their studies as post  graduate   students  of  Medical  College,  Rohtak  on 1.10.1982 and  obtained an  order of  status quo  ante as of that date  to be  maintained from  this Court.  But for  the misrepresentation this  Court would  never have  passed  the said order. By reason of such conduct, they have disentitled themselves from  getting any  relief or assistance from this Court and  the special  leave petitions  are  liable  to  be dismissed. [1038 F-H]      (2) In  view of their conduct, the petitioners will pay a  sum  of  Rs.  2,500.00  each  by  way  of  costs  to  the respondents. [1039 E]      [The Court  took a  lenient  view,  on  the  tender  of apology by  the counsel  on his  own behalf and on behalf of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the petitioners  and awarded only costs under order XLI Rule 2, instead  of drastic action by the respective professional bodies to which they belonged.] 1038

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 9009 and 9010 of 1982.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  the  21st  day  of September, 1982  of the  High Court  of Punjab  & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 2484/82 and 2479/82.      Dr.  Adarsh   Kapoor  and  Mrs.  V.D.  Khanna  for  the petitioner.      K.G. Bhagat,  Additional Solicitor  General and  R.  N. Poddar with him for the respondents.      The Order of the Court was delivered by      TULZAPURKAR,J. In the above matters since a dispute was raised as  to whether  the provisional admissions granted to the two  petitioners had continued till 1st October, 1982 or were cancelled long prior to that date, an issue was sent to the District Judge Rohtak for inquiry and a finding thereon. The District  Judge Rohtak was required to submit his report within a specified time. Later for some reasons, which it is unnecessary to  mention, the  enquiry was transferred to the District Judge,  Hissar who  has now submitted his report to this Court  through his  letter dated  4th  February,  1983. After holding  a full-fledged  enquiry during  the course of which oral  as well  as documentary evidence was produced by the parties  in support  of their  respective versions,  the District  Judge   has  recorded   a  finding   against   the petitioners to  the effect  that to  their  knowledge  their provisional admissions  had been  cancelled by the concerned Authorities much  before the crucial date namely, 1.10.1982. In  other   words,  it   is  clear  that  on  1.10.1982  the petitioners made  a false  representation to this Court that they were continuing their studies as post-graduate students of Medical  College Rohtak on 1.10.82, and obtained an order of status  quo as  of that  date to  be maintained from this Court. But  for the misrepresentation this Court would never have passed  the said  order. By reason of such conduct they have disentitled  themselves  from  getting  any  relief  or assistance from  this Court  and the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be dismissed.      Counsel for  the petitioners attempted to challenge the finding recorded  by the  District Judge as also some of his observations made  against the  petitioners but  after going through the  report and other material and after considering all the contentions urged against 1039 it we are satisfied that it is a very thorough, balanced and satisfactory report  and  we  accept  the  finding  recorded therein. In  view of this C.M.P. No. 27798 of 1982 taken out by the  petitioners for  contempt as  also the Special Leave Petition Nos, 9009/82 and 9010/82 deserve to be dismissed.      Before parting  with the  case, however, we cannot help observing  that   the  conduct   or  behaviour  of  the  two petitioners as  well as  their counsel  (Dr. A.K. Kapoor who happens  to  be  a  medico-legal  consultant  practising  in Courts) is most reprehensible and deserves to be deprecated. The District  Judge’s report  in that behalf is eloquent and most revealing  as it points out how the two petitioners and their counsel,  (who also  gave evidence  in support  of the petitioner’s case  before the  District Judge) have indulged

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

in  telling   lies  and   making  reckless   allegation   of fabrication and  manipulation of records against the College Authorities and  how in fact the boot is on their leg. It is a sad  commentary on  the  scruples  of  these  three  young gentlemen who  are on  the threshold  of their  carriers. In fact, at  one stage  we were  inclined to refer the District Judge’s report  both to  the Medical  Council as well as the Bar Council  for appropriate  action but  we refrained  from doing so  as the  petitioners’ counsel both on behalf of his clients as  well as  on his  own behalf tendered unqualified apology and  sought mercy  from the Court. We, however, part with the  case with  a heavy  heart  expressing  our  strong disapproval of  their conduct  and behaviour but direct that the petitioners  will pay  a sum of Rs. 2,500 each as by way of costs  to the  respondents. The two S.L.Ps and C.M.P. are thus dismissed  with the  aforesaid direction  in regard  to payment of costs. S.R.                                    Petitions dismissed. 1