{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPL. APPEAL (WRIT) NO.681/2010 JAWANA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date of Judgment : 10.11.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. S.L. Jain, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.No 746 of 2009 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High court Rules against an order dt. 10.5.2010 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant essentially on the ground of suppression of material facts in the writ petition which have bearing over the controversy involved in the writ petition. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground mentioned above. { 2 } 4. This is what learned Single Judge in his concluding Para held while dismissing the writ petition. “In view of the above reasons, both these writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of suppression of important material facts by the petitioners as well as in view of the fact that the injunction order has already been refused to the petitioners by the civil court and the civil suits of the petitioners have already been dismissed and against which appeals are pending and the civil suit by the respondents is pending wherein if law permits, the parties may proceed and get final adjudication so that final decision can be given instead of passing orders here and there repeatedly and again and again.” 5. The dispute relates to an order Dt. 7.1.2009 passed by Superintendent Engineer in relation to supply of water and redesigning of certain parcel of land claimed to be in possession of the writ petitioners. It arises out of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act (for short hereinafter called The Act). It was not disputed that before filing of the present writ petition, civil suits were filed in civil court by these very writ petitioners in which application for temporary injunction was made. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application by the civil court, appeals were filed. These appeals were also dismissed and then matters were brought to { 3 } this court in writ petition which too was dismissed. That apart, several orders between the private parties who are now made parties in this writ petition had also been passed by several authorities under the Act in respect of the subject matter of this very litigation prior to filing of this writ petition. It is with this back ground, the writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arise was filed in which none of these facts were disclosed. It is this factor which was made basis by the learned Single Judge in the order for dismissing the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to concur with the view expressed by Single Judge 7. In our considered opinion, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and was rightly dismissed by the writ court. Indeed to understand the issue raised by the writ petitioner, the writ court devoted eleven pages in writing a judgment. Mere perusal of the writ petition would go to show that it is based on prolix pleadings and significantly, the material facts were left out. If the civil suit in respect of the same subject matter was filed prior to filing of the writ petition, then it is the civil suit which must be pursued by the writ petitioner in accordance with law for obtaining the relief and not by fling writ petition. That apart, no attempt was made to show that either pleadings in the writ petition contained all relevant facts including filing of civil suit or that the filing of civil suit had nothing to do with the { 4 } controversy. 8. Learned counsel referring to various provisions of the Act contended that writ petition should have been entertained and eventually be allowed. To say the least, we could not make out any relevant argument to appreciate the issue. We do not therefore consider it proper to take note of submissions in detail. 9. It is a settled principal of law that a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is an extra ordinary remedy. Once a remedy of civil suit is resorted to by the writ petitioner, then all other remedies in respect of the subject matter is barred. Both the remedies i.e. the one in civil court and the other in writ court can not be allowed to be prosecuted in two different fora. That apart, if a person has not come to the court with clean hands and indulges in suppression of material facts which have bearing over the controversy, then writ court has jurisdiction not to entertain such writ and decline to exercise the discretion in favour of such person. 10. Since in this case, the appellant was not able to point out that filing of civil suit had nothing to do with the subject matter of writ petition and therefore the pleadings in that regard were not made in the writ petition or that it had no bearing over the issue involved in the writ petition, the writ court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on this very ground. We concur with the reasoning and conclusion of writ court. { 5 } 11. In view of foregoing discussion, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limini ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/