Honble SHETHNA, J.–The law is very clear that a person who does not come with the clean hands before the Court seeking justice, cannot get justice from the Court.

(2). An application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay filed by the appellant petitioner was rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the cause which has been shown in the application was not a sufficient cause. It was a false statement made in the application by the petitioner that her lawyer never informed about the result. The Board of Revenue has clearly found that the petitioner was duly represented by a lawyer, therefore, she had knowledge of the order passed, which should have been challenged within the sti- pulated time. Surprisingly, the petitioner emphasized on the fact that the concerned lawyer was never engaged by her but the same plea was found to be false. The Board of Revenue noticed that there was a signature of the Advocate on the Order-sheet which clearly shows that on 5.10.76 the petitioner was duly represented by a lawyer. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground

Click Here to Read the rest of this document