IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30851 of 2009(B) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP.15/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.O.AZEEZ,, AGED 45 YRS., S/O.FAJJER, HOTEL BUSINESS, KARUVANCHAL AMSOM, KALLAYMUKKU DESOM, KOTTAYADU KALLAYMUKKU, P.O.KARUVANCHAL, THALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT: --------------- KAYYALAKATH ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.ABDULLA KUTTY HAJI, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANUR DESOM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY KAYYALAKATH ABOOBACKER, S/O.MAMMU HAJI, KEEZHAHALLUR AMSOM, KONGERI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN FOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 30851 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th November, 2009. JUDGMENT PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. It is submitted by Mr. K.H. Sakir, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has complied with the condition imposed by this Court while passing interim order of stay. Learned counsel submitted that it will suffice if this Court grants prayer No: (iii) in the writ petition and directs the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose of the R.C.R. early. 2. Shri. K.Rajesh Sukumaran, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that the very same writ petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P(C) 21212/2009 and this Court had granted relief to him on certain conditions which he never complied with. Even an application filed by him seeking extension of time was subsequently withdrawn by him. It is without disclosing his earlier motion before this Court that the present writ petition has been filed. According to the learned counsel this Court may not exercise the discretion to grant relief to the petitioner. 3. We find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for WPC 30851/2009 2 the respondent. We agree with his submission that it was obligatory on the part of the writ petitioner to have disclosed his earlier motion before this Court in WP(C) 30851/2009 and the orders passed in that writ petition. In fact in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by him along with the present writ petition he has averred as follows: “ I have not moved any petition earlier seeking the relief in regard to the same subject matter not only that he has not disclosed vital information.” 4. It is clear that he has made false averments through the affidavit filed by him in this Court. 5. We decline relief and dismiss this writ petition. The writ petitioner is directed to be present in person before this Court at 10.15 a.m. on 10.11.2009 for showing cause as to why punitive action should not be initiated against him for suppressing material facts and for stating falsehood. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO: --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: