Suppression of material facts disentitles a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two Appeals, one filed by Fayaz Ahmad Rather and another by his counsel, Shri P.S. Ahmad, Advocate, are directed against judgement dated 11th January 2023, passed by learned Single Judge (Writ Court) in WP(C) No. 2610/2022, whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant herein ("the writ petitioner") along with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-, on the solitary ground of suppression of material facts and misleading the Court. The Writ Court has also deprecated the conduct of counsel for writ petitioner and has warned him to be very careful in future.

2. Both the writ petitioner and his counsel, Mr. Ahmad, are aggrieved of the impugned judgement and have assailed the same on multiple grounds, more prominently on the ground that on the facts and on material on record there was no suppression of material facts and that the Writ Court could not draw distinction between the "material facts" and "unnecessary and peripheral facts".

3. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge vehemently urged by Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for appellants, we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading upto the filing of the instant appeals.

4. There is a dispute between writ petitioner and respondents 8 to 10 with respect to the land measuring 01 Kanal 01 Marla under Survey no.748, 05 Marlas under Survey No. 749, and 06 Marlas under Survey No. 752, along with a double storeyed house constructed thereon, situate at Rani Pura, Kulgam (subject property). Indisputably the subject property was owned by Respondent No. 11 (a migrant). The writ petitioner claims the subject property on the basis of an affidavit and agreement purportedly executed by Respondent No. 11 in his favour for consideration of Rs. 16.00 Lacs; out of which the writ petitioner claims to have paid Rs. 10.00 Lacs to Respondent No. 11. Respondents 8 to 10 have laid their claim on the subject property on the basis of a valid sale deed executed by respondent no.11 after seeking prior permission from the competent authority, i.e., Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in terms of Order No. 1283-DIVK of 2010, dated 3rd April, 2010. Respondents 8 to 10 also rely upon Mutation No. 3418, dated 22nd December 2011, attested by attesting officer, mutating the subject property in their favour.

5. This tug of war to claim subject property between the parties led the writ petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration before the court of learned Munsiff, Kulgam (Trial Court), wherein the writ petitioner challenged the Deed of Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell executed by Respondent No. 11 in favour of respondents 8 to 10. Along with the suit, the writ petitioner also moved an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining respondents 8 to 10 herein from interfering in the suit property. Vide interim order dated 9th November 2011, the Trial Court, while issuing notice to respondents 8 to 10 herein (defendants in the suit), directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property till further orders. The suit was contested by respondents 8 to 10 by filing written statement as also by moving an application for vacation of the ad interim ex parte stay granted by the Trial Court on 9th November, 2011. The Trial Court, after hearing both the sides and considering the merits, dismissed the application for interim injunction vide order dated 4th August, 2012 and vacated ad interim ex parte stay granted on 9th November, 2011.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the court of Principal District Judge Kulgam (the Appellate Court). The appeal too was dismissed on 27th December, 2012. The writ petitioner having failed to persuade the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court to grant interim order of status quo, filed yet another suit before the court of Munsiff, Kulgam. This time, the writ petitioner challenged the sale deed executed by Respondent No. 11 in favour of respondents 8 to 10. Along