1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3745 OF 2006 1.Sau.Uma Rajesh Deshpande & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.M/s.Chaitanya Builders & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.A.A.Garge, for Petitioners. Mr.P.B.Shah, for Respondent nos.2 to 4. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 18th JANUARY,2008. P.C.:- 1. The petitioners have approached this Court under extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. But the petitioners have suppressed the material facts 2 from the Court and have made incorrect and misleading statements. The case of the petitioners is that because they complied with their obligation under the decree, the judgment debtor was liable to pay the amount. One of the reasons given by the executing Court for holding that the decreetal amount is not payable is that the civil suit of which number is mentioned is pending. But alongwith the petition, copy of the civil suit is not filed, copy of the order passed in that suit is also not produced. Even, it is not disclosed as to who has filed the suit, why the suit has been filed, whether the petitioners are party to that suit, whether any rights against the petitioners are claimed in the suit. The case of the other side is that the original owners are parties to that civil suit and one of the conditions that was to be complied with before payment of money was clearing title, and because of pendency of that civil suit as title is not clear, money cannot be paid. In my opinion, therefore, it was for the plaintiffs to place on record a copy of the plaint and to make proper averments in the petition. Copy of the plaint has not been placed on record and the relevant 3 averments are not made in the petition with the obvious intention to mislead the Court and to suppress the relevant and material facts from the Court. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the Executing Court directing delivery of the property which was under attachment to the applicant. The reason given by the Executing Court is that when the property was attached, possession of the property was taken from that person and for that purpose obviously reliance is placed on the bailiff's report. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners urged before me that the bailiff did not take possession from the defendant no.3 but he took it from defendant no.2. But there is no copy of bailiff report produced on record. The clear attempt of the petitioners appears to be that the document should be withheld from the Court and misleading statements should be made before the Court and by that method to procure orders from the Court. In my opinion, such methods adopted by the parties have to be discouraged. It is obvious that as the petitioners have suppressed the material facts and documents from the Court, the 4 petition cannot be entertain in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In my opinion, in order to discourage other Advocates and parties from adopting such methods, exemplary cost should be imposed for abusing the process of the Court in such manner. The petition is rejected. The petitioners are directed to pay as and by way of cost Rs.5,000/- to the respondents. ---