The court upheld the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the need for truthful and accurate allegations in applications before the court.

( 1 ) LA. Ii is the application for recalling Order dated 28-10-1983, passed by the then acting chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice v. s. malimath, in the two writ petitions viz. , writ petition nos. 35806 and 35807 of 1982, whereby Hon'ble acting chief Justice had dismissed the above writ petitions on the ground that none appears and no steps have been taken. This application for recall or setting aside the Order of dismissal of the writ petition for default and non-prosecution had been moved on 6-10-1993, later on an application under Section 5 of limitation ACT for condonation of delay, in filing the recall application, had been moved in this court on 19-11-1993. This application for condonation of delay is la. I to the writ petition. During Pendency of these Aapplications la. V had been moved for substitution of the names of the heirs of respondent 4 who is alleged to have died on 10-1-1993 along with the application for setting aside the abatement and application for condonation of delay in moving the application for substitution. The application for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application and application for setting aside abatement are la. Iii and la. Iv, while application for bringing l. rs. Of respondent 4 is i. a. v.

( 2 ) APPLICATION for recalling of Order dated 28-10-1983 is prima facie beyond time, it appears to have been moved on 6-10-1993 i. e. , almost at the fagend of 10th year from the date of passing Order in the writ petition. So this application la. Ii for- recalling the Order has been beyond limitation. Ordinarily the period of 30 days is prescribed for moving an application for setting aside an Order of dismissal of a case for default. The present application appears to have been moved under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for the same purpose. So even if this application be taken as not under Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and as submitted by the counsel for the parties as it is covered by residuary clause, then at the most if anything can be said on behalf of the petitioner, an application had to be moved within 3 years under the residuary article 137. Though I do not decide this question as to whether limitation is of 30 days to move this application or 3 years, as it is not necessary for the purpose of the case, on account of the fact that application for recalling is delayed by more than 3 years. It is delayed by 10 years. The petitioner/applicant has moved an application for condonation of delay which is i. a. I as mentioned earlier. The jurisdiction to condone delay no doubt is statutory but discretionary and the discretion which has to be exercised is not arbitrary, but it has to be exercised judiciously under Section 5 of the limitation ACT and that can be exercised if the applicant shows sufficient cause for having not moved the application within time or at least on the last date of limitation and thereafter during the period earlier than the date of filing of the said application. It is also well-settled principle of law that person who wants to claim equitable jurisdiction of the court must come with clean hands and if a party makes incorrect allegations or asserts wrong facts then that party is not entitled to exercise of such jurisdiction in his favour. A perusal of the allegations at paragraph 2 per se shows that the petitioner/applicants allegation to the effect that petitioners did not have the knowledge of the Order of dismissal of the writ petition viz. , Order dated 28. 10. 1983 till date of moving the application for recall or till before september 1993, per se appears to be false and incorrect, and it appears to be wrong that they were kept in dark. In paragraph 2 the petitioner has stated after having mentioned that or having stated that the petitioners were kept in dark of the dismissal of the writ petitions, and without indicating by whom he was kept in dark. The petitioner states "however, the first petitioner was advised to file anoth