IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 282 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.8.2011 Dilbag Singh and ors. …Petitioners Versus Om Parkash and ors. ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Appellants : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisth, Advocate. Deepak Gupta , Judge (oral) By means of this petition, the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') have challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una, dated 30.6.2011 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and upheld the order of the learned trial court rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs for grant of interim relief. 2. In the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court normally would not interfere in concurrent findings of fact. Furthermore, in the present case, I find that the plaintiffs have to be non-suited only on the ground that they have withheld material facts from the court, as far as the prayer for grant of interim relief is concerned. From the order of the learned Additional 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?.Yes District Judge (FTC), Una, I also found that there was some previous litigation between the parties. Therefore, on the last date of hearing, the plaintiffs were directed to file copies of the pleadings. A perusal of the pleadings shows that one of the plaintiffs, namely, Om Parkash, son of Suram Singh, had earlier also filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from raising any construction or changing the nature of the suit land. 3. True it may be that the suit, which has now been filed, is a suit for partition and not for injunction, but a duty was caste upon the plaintiffs to inform the Court in the subsequent suit that previously they had also filed a suit, which was still pending. Any party which comes to the Court seeking discretionary relief must approach the Court with clean hands. In case, a party tries to mislead or hoodwink the Court, such a party is not entitled to any discretionary relief. Though, the subsequent suit may be on a different cause of action and for grant of a totally different relief, however, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to have informed the Court about the previous suit and about the rejection of the application for grant of stay in the previous suit. On this ground alone, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), August 25, 2011, Judge. (pankaj) 2