NIJJAR S.S., J.:---Before coming to the merits of this notice of motion it would be apt to reproduce certain observations of the Supreme Court and of Punjab and Haryana High Court as they are relevant in the context of the controversy raised in this Notice of Motion. In the case of (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath)1, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 853 the Supreme Court (Kuldip Singh, J.) observed as follows :

"7. The High Court in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. The High Court, however, went, haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extend of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often that not process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation". (emphasis supplied)

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (G.S. Singhvi, J.) in the case of (Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another)2, 1994(5) S.L.R. 73 observed as follows :-

"9. There is an additional and a very cogent ground for not giving any relief to the petitioner. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner has made an attempt to mislead the Court by giving an incorrect picture of the remarks made in his annual confidential reports. In para 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made a statement regarding the remarks in his annual confidential reports. However, this statement is contrary to the remarks actually made in his annual confidential reports for the years 1983-84, 1989-90 and 1990-91 .............. He has not come out with a case that he presumed entries in his confidential reports for these years to be good because nothing has been communicated to him. It is thus clear that the petitioner has deliberately made an attempt to mislead the Court by painting a rosy picture about the entries in his annual confidential reports. In our opinion, a person who makes an attempt to mislead the Court by misstatement of facts or by deliberate twisting of facts has no right to get any relief from the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (emphasis supplied) Writ jurisdiction of the Court can be exercised only in favour of those who come with clean hands and a person who approaches the Court with tainted hands has no right to be heard on the merits of his case.

10. In (Rex v. Kensinghton)3, 1917(1) K.B. 486 Cozens Hardy M.R. observed:

"On an ex parte application oberrima fides is required, and unless that can be established if there is any thing like deception practised on the Court, the Court ought not to go into the merits of the case, but simply say we will not listen to your application because of what you have done."

Lord Serutton L.J. observed:

"It has been for many years the rule of the Court and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when any applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts, facts not law........... The applicant must state fully and fairly the facts and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is