Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Raja And Ors vs Haji Mohammad Maqbool Nath on 31 March, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
Serial No. 01
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP (D) No. 51/2023 in
LPA No. 107/2019 c/w
LPA No. 107/2019
Raja and Ors.
... Appellant(s)
Through: -
Mr Nisar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
V/s
Haji Mohammad Maqbool Nath
... Respondent(s)
Through: –
Mr B. A. Bashir, Senior Advocate with
Mr Azeem Rasic Nabi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
(ORDER)
31.03.2026CM No. 4908/2023 in LPA No. 107/2019:
01. Despite CM No. 4908/2023 having been considered vide Order
dated 04 October 2023, whereby the Registry was directed to accept the
costs of Rs. 50,000/-, but, according to the learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondent-Contemnor, the second prayer made in the application
regarding deposit of sum of Rs. 74.00 lacs till the disposal of LPA No.
107/2019 is still pending consideration, therefore, it necessitated to deal
with the submissions made by the Respondent-Contemnor at some length in
view of the repeated attempts being made to raise the facts which have
assumed finality.
02. Since, the matter has a chequered history, therefore, before
coming to the prayer made in the application on hand, it is necessary to
CCP (D) No. 51/2023 in LPA No. 107/2019 c/w
LPA No. 107/2019Page 2 of 8
recapitulate certain background facts in order to understand the controversy
in its real perspective.
03. The present case emanates from a family dispute between a
brother (Respondent-Contemnor) and his three sisters (Appellants-
Petitioners) regarding succession to the estate of their deceased father,
namely, Jalal Din Nath. The estate includes Hotel Sunrise, along with land
appurtenant thereto, situate at Lal Mandi, Srinagar. After the demise of their
father, all the siblings claimed right as legal heirs and a civil dispute in
respect of their shares in the estate was already pending before the Court of
learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar. During the subsistence of this
dispute, Hotel Sunrise had been hired by the official Respondents for
accommodating their employees. However, vide Order dated 27 October
2017, the official Respondents excluded the said Hotel from the list of hired
accommodations. Aggrieved thereof, the Respondent-Contemnor filed a
Writ Petition, being OWP No. 1750/2017, seeking a direction to the
authorities to continue hiring the Hotel and to release rental dues in his
favour. The learned Single Judge, vide interim Order dated 02 November
2017, directed release of rentals from May 2017 till that date in favour of
the Respondent-Contemnor.
04. The Appellants-Petitioners, claiming themselves to be the co-
owners of the property, challenged the said interim Order by filing LPAOW
No. 232/2017, primarily, on the ground that they had not been impleaded as
necessary parties. The Division Bench, vide Order dated 19 April 2018,
directed their impleadment and further ordered that the Writ Court shall
reconsider the matter afresh, besides directing the parties to maintain status
quo as it existed on that date.
05. Thereafter, instead of complying with the directions of the
Division Bench, the Respondent-Contemnor filed an application, being MP
No. 01 of 2019, seeking withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to file
afresh. Notably, the said application was filed without impleading the
Appellants-Petitioners as party and without serving notice upon them. The
CCP (D) No. 51/2023 in LPA No. 107/2019 c/w
LPA No. 107/2019
Page 3 of 8
learned Single Judge, without issuing notice to either the official
Respondents or the Appellants-Petitioners, allowed the withdrawal
application on 30 January 2019. Consequently, the Writ Petition was
dismissed as withdrawn at the back of the Appellants-Petitioners.
06. It is an admitted position on record that despite the Order of
status quo passed by the Division Bench, the Respondent-Contemnor did
not disclose the same before the learned Single Judge. Furthermore, taking
advantage of the withdrawal of the Writ Petition and the absence of any
immediate proceedings, the Respondent-Contemnor succeeded in
persuading the official Respondents to release the rental dues amounting to
Rs. 74.00 lacs in his favour on 15 March 2019.
07. In this backdrop, the Court formed a prima facie opinion that
the Respondent-Contemnor had acted in a clandestine and dishonest manner
by suppressing material facts, thereby misusing the process of Court and
securing monetary benefit to the exclusion of the Appellants-Petitioners.
The Court held that such conduct amounted to fraud upon the Court and
warranted initiation of contempt proceedings.
08. During the contempt proceedings, the Respondent-Contemnor,
in the presence of the Court, through his Counsel, submitted that he was
willing to deposit the entire amount withdrawn by him. It was specifically
stated by his Counsel, on instructions, that in order to show bona fides, he
would deposit Rs. 15.00 lacs within two weeks and the balance amount
within a period of two months. The Respondent-Contemnor also tendered
an unconditional undertaking before the Court to deposit the said amount.
The Court accepted this undertaking and directed deposit in terms thereof.
09. Subsequently, however, the Respondent-Contemnor sought to
resile from the said undertaking by filing a Review Petition against the
Order dated 14 May 2019. In the Review Petition, he took a plea that he had
never made such a statement before the Court and that his Counsel had
asked him to remain silent during the proceedings, failing which he would
CCP (D) No. 51/2023 in LPA No. 107/2019 c/w
LPA No. 107/2019
Page 4 of 8
be jailed. The Court, after considering the rival submissions and examining
the record, rejected this contention, holding that the undertaking was made
in open Court in presence of Respondent-Contemnor and that he could not
be permitted to wriggle out of the same.
10. The Court further observed that the Respondent-Contemnor
had deliberately failed to implead the Appellants-Petitioners in the
withdrawal application and had suppressed the fact of status quo Order
passed by the Division Bench. It reiterated that a litigant invoking Writ
jurisdiction is required to approach the Court with clean hands and full
disclosure of material facts and that suppression thereof amounts to
misleading the Court.
11. The Court concluded that the Respondent-Contemnor had
taken undue advantage of the situation and had misled the official
Respondents into releasing the rental amount of Rs. 74.00 lacs in his favour,
thereby committing fraud upon the Court. It was further held that the
Review Petition was devoid of merit and was another attempt by the
Respondent-Contemnor to retain the amount and circumvent the earlier
Order. Accordingly, the Review Petition came to be dismissed vide Order
dated 25 November 2022 with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- and the
Respondent-Contemnor was directed to deposit the entire rental amount of
Rs. 74.00 lacs within the stipulated time. He was also directed to show
cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
12. Despite the dismissal of the Review Petition and withdrawal of
the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
Respondent-Contemnor has failed to comply with the undertaking and the
directions of the Court. As such, at the instance of the Appellants-
Petitioners, contempt proceedings have been initiated against the
Respondent-Contemnor for willful disobedience of the undertaking and
non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court.
CCP (D) No. 51/2023 in LPA No. 107/2019 c/w
LPA No. 107/2019
Page 5 of 8
13. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the
Respondent-Contemnor not only abused the process of law, but also
deliberately suppressed material facts to secure an undue advantage,
thereby committing fraud upon the Court.
14. In the present case, the Respondent-Contemnor consciously
withheld crucial facts from the Court at multiple stages. Most significantly,
he failed to disclose the Order dated 19 April 2018 passed by the Division
Bench in LPAOW No. 232/2017, whereby status quo was directed to be
maintained and the Writ Court was required to reconsider the matter after
impleading the Appellants-Petitioners. This suppression was not
inadvertent, but deliberate, as the said Order had a direct bearing on the
maintainability and further proceedings in the Writ Petition. Further, while
filing the withdrawal application, MP No. 01 of 2019, the Respondent-
Contemnor intentionally chose not to implead the Appellants-Petitioners,
despite their recognized status as necessary parties pursuant to the Order of
the Division Bench. He also ensured that no notice of the said application
was served upon them. By doing so, he prevented any objection from being
raised and secured an order of withdrawal behind their back. This act was
clearly designed to circumvent judicial scrutiny and avoid adjudication on
merits.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and again, held that it is
impermissible for a party to invoke Writ jurisdiction, obtain interim relief
during the pendency of the Petition and thereafter withdraw the proceedings
without securing a proper adjudication on merits, while still seeking to
retain the benefits flowing from such interim orders. In this context, in
‘Abhimanyoo Ram v. State of U. P., 2008 17 SCC 73′, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held:
“Any attempt by a litigant to retain the benefit of the
interim order by avoiding final adjudication, requires to be
deprecated. In fact, it requires to be dealt with sternly. Courts
should bestow caution while dismissing cases where interim
relief had been granted as not pressed or as withdrawn.”
CCP (D) No. 51/2023 in LPA No. 107/2019 c/w
LPA No. 107/2019
Page 6 of 8
16. Similarly, in ‘Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant
Vimalnath Narichania, 2010 9 SCC 437′, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
categorically held:
“It is not permissible for a party to file a writ petition,
obtaining certain orders during the pendency of the petition and
withdraw the same without getting proper adjudication of the
issue involved therein and insist that the benefits of the interim
orders or consequential orders passed in pursuance of the
interim order passed by the writ court would continue.”
17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, it becomes evident that the Respondent-Contemnor, after securing an
interim Order for release of rental dues, deliberately avoided adjudication
by withdrawing the Writ Petition in a clandestine manner. Thereafter,
taking advantage of the vacuum created by such withdrawal and the
suppression of the status quo Order, he induced the official Respondents to
release an amount of Rs. 74.00 lacs in his favour. Thus, he not only retained
the benefit of the interim order, but converted it into a final monetary gain
through deceitful means.
18. The suppression of the Division Bench Order, non-
impleadment of necessary parties and withdrawal of the Writ Petition,
without notice, were all calculated steps aimed at misleading the Court.
These acts enabled him to obtain a pecuniary benefit of Rs. 74.00 lacs,
which he would not have otherwise secured, had true and complete facts
been placed before the Court. Thus, the suppression of material facts by the
Respondent-Contemnor was not merely a procedural irregularity, but a
deliberate stratagem to abuse the judicial process. Such conduct strikes at
the very root of the administration of justice and constitutes fraud upon the
Court. Once it is established that an Order has been obtained by playing
fraud, such an Order is rendered a nullity in the eyes of law and the person
responsible is liable to be proceeded against for Contempt.
19. Accordingly, the conduct of the Respondent-Contemnor,
viewed in light of the settled legal position, unequivocally establishes that
CCP (D) No. 51/2023 in LPA No. 107/2019 c/w
LPA No. 107/2019
Page 7 of 8
he has not only suppressed material facts, but has also committed fraud
upon the Court by manipulating judicial proceedings to secure wrongful
gain.
20. In the afore-stated factual background, we have no doubt in
holding that the pendency of the LPA, in no way, can be used as a shield to
not comply with the Order dated 14 May 2019. Secondly, the interim Order
dated 19 April 2018 passed by the Division Bench in LPAOW No.
232/2017, by virtue of which the parties were directed to maintain status
quo as it existed from the date of passing of the said Order, continued to
bind the parties despite dismissal of the Writ Petition of the Petitioner
(Respondent-Contemnor) as withdrawn and, in view of the Order passed by
the Division Bench, any interim Order passed by the learned Single Judge
pales into insignificance and, therefore, the Division Bench, vide Order
under dated 14 May 2019, rightly held that there was no interim direction
passed by the learned Single Judge which could be vacated.
21. The findings of fact, though assailed by virtue of Review
Petition and subsequently before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but same
were not interfered, and thus same have attained the finality, hence, the
Order dated 14 May 2019, for all practical purposes, is an independent
Order, whereby the Respondent-Contemnor has undertaken to deposit Rs.
15.00 lacs within two weeks before the Registry and remaining amount
within two months from the date of undertaking and same is binding,
irrespective of the pendency of LPA No. 107/2019.
22. For the foregoing reasons, the instant application, insofar as
the second prayer made therein regarding deferment of deposit of Rs. 74.00
lacs till the disposal of LPA No. 107/2019 is concerned, is rejected. The
Respondent-Contemnor is directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 74.00 lacs
by or before the next date of hearing, failing which appropriate orders shall
follow. The Respondent-Contemnor shall also remain present before the
Court on the next date of hearing without fail.
CCP (D) No. 51/2023 in LPA No. 107/2019 c/w
LPA No. 107/2019
Page 8 of 8
23. CM No. 4908/2023 shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
24. List LPA No. 107/2019, along with CCP (D) No. 51/2023, on
04 May 2026.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
March 31st, 2026
"TAHIR"
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
