IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.867 of 2010 in/and L.P.A. No.1222 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.3.2010 Raj Pal and another. -----Appellants Vs. The Collector-cum-City Magistrate etc. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, setting aside the order of partition and remanding the matter to Assistant Collector Ist Grade for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 2. The writ petitioner-respondent No.3 purchased a plot from Ram Pyari and her brothers. Ram Pyari filed partition application, in which though her brothers were served, the writ petitioner was not served. The writ petitioner approached this Court and pointed out that she had some objections against the proposed partition, which should be heard. Learned Single Judge upheld the said contention and remanded the matter. LPA No.1222 of 2009 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants who are subsequent purchasers from one of the co-sharers. 4. Contention raised is that the writ petitioner had earlier filed a suit and when interim injunction was declined, the suit was dismissed in default. Thereafter, writ petition was filed without disclosing this fact. In view of concealment of material fact, the writ petition should not have been heard on merits. 5. Though concealment of a material fact is a ground not to entertain a writ petition, the fact remains that the appellants are not in any way prejudiced by the order passed by learned Single Judge. Only grievance is that the appellants have constructed a house which may be affected in partition proceedings. We cannot appreciate this contention, at this stage, as the concerned authority is bound to take into account the existence of house and to adjust equities in accordance with law, after considering the view point of all the parties. 6. This being the position, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 09, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2