CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 27, 2009 Roshan Lal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. R. Yadav, Advocate, for applicant-respondent Nos.3 to 5. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On an application filed by the petitioner under Section 7 of Punjab Village Commons Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, an order ejecting respondent Nos.3 to 5 was passed on 31.1.2001. The petitioner filed an execution of the said order as it had become final. When respondents failed to take any action, the petitioner filed this writ petition in October 2007, seeking direction to execute the order dated 30.1.2001. This writ petition was disposed of on 8.1.2008 without issuing notice to the respondents with directions to Sub CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Divisional Officer (C), Kosli (respondent No.2) to expeditiously take up the matter of execution of order dated 30.1.2001 and decide the same within three months from the date of receipt of copy of order. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 thereafter filed a review application, seeking recall of the order dated 8.1.2008 on the ground that Additional Civil Judge had granted injunction in favour of respondents on May 3, 2004. This was subsequently appealed against by the petitioner before Additional District Judge, Rewari. This appeal was dismissed on January 16, 2008. The Division Bench took serious note of this conduct on the part of the petitioner. The Bench observed that counsel for the petitioner had managed to obtain the orders in favour of his client by failing to disclose the fact of pendency of proceedings before Civil Court. Notice of motion in the review application was accordingly issued and order dated 8.1.2008 was ordered to remain in abeyance. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on various dates but counsel for the petitioner chose not to appear. Despite service to the counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.D.Yadav, he remained absent, leading to various adjournments. When the counsel continued to remain absent, the Division Bench withdrew the order dated 8.1.2008 and directed that the case be placed before a Bench as per roster. The writ petition has now been set down for hearing. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The reasons in this regard are too obvious to need a notice in the order. Apparently, the petitioner had misled this Court, which led to passing of the order dated 8.1.2008, despite the injunction order, which has CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: been granted by the Civil Judge. This factual aspect was not pointed out before the Court, when the order dated 8.1.2008 was passed. The petitioner was well aware of the proceedings pending before the Civil Court as he is the one who had appealed against the order granting injunction by Additional Civil Judge in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. In fairness, the petitioner was required to disclose all these facts to his counsel and he expectedly was required to aver all these facts in the petition. This having not been done, the Court was misled in passing the order, which subsequently had to be reviewed, when the correct position was pointed out before the Court. The action of the petitioner has not only led to passing of an order, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case was not required to be made but has resulted in wasting the time of the Court, which otherwise could have been better utilized in disposing of other cases. Since an attempt has been made to mislead the Court, the petition would deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone, which otherwise is also without any merits. In addition, the petitioner ought to be made answerable for his conduct. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-, to be deposited in the accounts of Legal Service Authority, Haryana, Chandigarh. Copy of this order be sent to the office of Advocate General, Haryana, to ensure compliance of the order and if need be to file execution of the order. April 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE