IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.93 of 2008 Date of decision: 4.6.2008. Gian Chand …..Petitioner -Versus- Suresh Kumar ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Kumar & Mr.S.D.Gill, Advocates For the respondent: Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed this petition challenging the judgment of the learned District Judge, Shimla passed in Civil Appeal No.61-S/14 of 2007 decided on 1.4.2008 whereby the learned District Judge has set-aside the stay order granted in favour of the plaintiff by the learned trial Court in CMA No.93/6 of 2007. It is not necessary to give the facts of the case in view of the fact that I propose to reject this petition solely on the ground that the plaintiff is guilty of forum hunting and has suppressed material facts from this Court. By now the law is more than well settled that any person who approaches the Court for grant of relief must come to the Court with clean hands. If he is guilty of suggestio falsii or suppresio veri then such a person is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court especially the extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When the matter was first taken up on 24th April, 2008, counsel for the respondent pointed out that the plaintiff had earlier filed a Civil Revision No.54 of 2008 and this fact had not been mentioned in the present petition. 2 Record of Civil Revision was called for and it was found that in fact the order which is under challenge in this petition was challenged by filing a Civil Revision which was listed before Hon’ble Justice D.D. Sud. According to the plaintiff it was pointed out by the learned Judge that the Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC was not maintainable and therefore he withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh petition. There is no manner of doubt that the petitioner was granted permission to withdraw the Civil Revision with liberty to file fresh petition. However, propriety demanded that in the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner should have mentioned that he had earlier filed a Revision which had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. However, at that stage, keeping in view the fact that Sh.S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the plaintiff had admitted that mistake may have been on his part, this Court had not viewed the aforesaid suppression with the amount of seriousness it deserved. When the matter was taken up today for hearing, Sh.Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that after the filing of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner had filed another writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was registered as CWP No.823 of 2008. In this petition the averments with regard to the suit out of which the present petition arises are as follows: “11.That the petitioner has not filed any other writ petition or civil suit before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the same and similar facts except filing of civil suit against the Respondent No.5 which is pending before Civil Judge (Jr.Division) Court No.6 Shimla on the facts that due to his excavation and digging the petitioner’s property came into danger.” The petitioner in the said writ petition did not make any mention that he had filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this 3 Court against the same respondent relating to the same property. It may be true that the causes of action in the two proceedings are different. Even if the causes of action are different, a petitioner is required to disclose complete facts to the writ Court. The plaintiff should have made a clean breast of the facts and should have informed the writ Court that a stay order had been passed in his favour which was vacated by the learned District Judge and he had challenged the order of the learned District Judge in the present proceedings. The plaintiff has not done so. I have been informed at the Bar that even the writ petition has been withdrawn. From the aforesaid facts it is more than obvious that the plaintiff was going forum hunting and moving from one Bench to the other trying to obtain a stay order. He did not disclose, while filing the present petition, that he had earlier filed a Civil Revision. Even after this Court had noticed this fact and called for the record of the Civil Revision and had warned the counsel to be careful in future, a fresh writ petition was filed in relation to the same property in which no mention was made of this petition and the interim proceedings out of which this petition arises. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever from this Court. Even without going to the merits of the case I think that this is a fit case where no indulgence should be shown to the plaintiff on account of the fact that he has time and again tried to suppress material facts from the Court. In view of the above discussion this petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. June 4, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge