Civil Revision No. 6346 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6346 of 2007 Date of decision: 12.01.2010 Shiv Chand and others ....Petitioners Versus Jagat Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23.11.2007, passed by the learned appellate Court, accepting the appeal filed by two of the defendants, against the injunction order passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, from interfering in possession of the property in their possession, on the plea, that being proprietors of the village, were in exclusive possession of the property, which was described as jumla mustarka malkan. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on the jamabandi for the year 2000-01 and khasra girdawri for the years 2001 to 2005, showing the possession of the plaintiff/petitioners. The learned trial Court in view of the revenue record placed on record, accepted the application. Civil Revision No. 6346 of 2007 -2- The learned appellate Court accepted the appeal on the ground, that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had earlier litigated qua the land in dispute, in which father of the petitioners was found to be in possession of only one of the khasra numbers measuring 7 kanals 18 marlas, and his possession qua other land was not proved. The learned appellate Court also took note of the fact, that the plaintiff/petitioners had filed another suit for permanent injunction against defendants No.1 and 2, but failed to disclose this fact in the plaint. The learned appellate Court, therefore, came to the conclusion, that as the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, were not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the order passed by the learned appellate Court cannot be sustained, as the previous suit filed by the petitioners was only against defendants No.1 and 2 and not against other defendants, it was for this reason that it was not felt necessary to disclose it in the plaint, specially when no prayer for temporary injunction was made for in the suit. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in view of the previous litigation, the petitioners were, in any case entitled to injunction qua the land measuring 7 kanals 18 marlas, which was held to be in possession of their father. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends, that the learned appellate Court has wrongly set aside the order, as two of the defendants has chosen not to file the appeal, therefore, the Court could not have set aside the order qua those two defendants, who were not the appellants in the appeal. Civil Revision No. 6346 of 2007 -3- On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is well settled law, that the person, who does not come to the Court with clean hands, is not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction. Once, it is not in dispute, that the factum of the previous suit, filed against defendants No.1 and 2, was concealed, the learned appellate Court was fully justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that because of two defendants had chosen to file the appeal, the learned appellate Court could not set aside the order, can also not be sustained in law, as admittedly those defendants were proforma respondents before the learned appellate Court. It was always open to learned appellate Court to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court/learned subordinate Court, even on appeal by one of the party. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 12, 2010 R.S.