A person obtaining an ex parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the Court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the Court.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The bane of the writ jurisdiction - a calculated and designed suppression of material facts in order to secure admission and interim relief - has come up for pointed attention and adjudication in this case.

2. The facts are now not in serious dispute. The six writ-petitioners are all grandsons of one Moman. They had jointly brought this writ petition to primarily challenge the order of the Collector (Agrarian), Kaithal, district Kurukshetra, dated 17.04.1972 (and the appellate and revisional order upholding the same) whereby he rejected their application, seeking that the area declared surplus in the hands of their predecessor-in-interest Moman deceased be exempted from allotment to the ejected tenants. This relief was sought on the ground that the said land had been subsequently purchased by the petitioners from the vendees of Moman deceased through a preemption suit which was later on decreed in their favour. The Collector vide Annexure P-3 took the view that the area in dispute having been sold after 30.07.1958 by Moman could not be deemed to be a bona fide sale by its original owner. He further held that the decree obtained by the petitioners much later on the 4th of April, 1972 was also collusive in nature. An appeal filed by all the six writ petitioners against the order aforesaid was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on the 14th of August, 1972 vide Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. A revision against the said order met a similar fate later.

3. It is no longer in doubt that long before the filing of the present writ petition, all the petitioners had instituted suit No. 744/1972 on the 2nd of May, 1972 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge II Class, Kaithal, seeking a declaration that the aforesaid order of the Collector (Agrarian), Kaithal, dated April 17, 1972, annexure P3, and all other proceedings regarding the suit land and pertaining to the allotment of surplus area etc. were void and a nullity and consequently not binding upon them. A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit land was also sought. The suit was dismissed with costs by the learned Subordinate Judge II Class on December 24, 1974. Against this dismissal, the writ petitioners then filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge which was again dismissed by Shri V. K. Jain, Additional District Judge on the 17th of Aug. 1976. No further appeal or revision was carried against the aforesaid order of the learned Additional District Judge.

4. The present writ petition was preferred on the 16th of Sept. 1975 and came up for motion hearings on the following day when the dispossession of the petitioners was stayed and notice of motion was issued for Oct. 8, 1975. From the subsequent orders of the Motion Bench it is plain that the appearance was put in on behalf of the official respondents only and the private respondents 4 to 11 were either not served or in any case they did not put in appearance and the case was subsequently admitted for hearing to a Full Bench in view of the conflict of authorities; whilst the stay in favour of the petitioner was allowed to continue.

5. The present civil miscellaneous application has been moved on behalf of respondents 4 to 10 in the writ petition, praying inter alia that the same be dismissed at the threshold on the short ground that there has been a mala fide and calculated suppression of material facts by the writ petitioners in order to over-reach the Court and thereby to procure the admission of the writ petition and secure interim relief which consequently has been granted to them. As this ground found favour with us entirely, we deem it unnecessary to advert to the other ground of res judicata upon which a similar relief of dismissal was also sought. It is for this reason that the facts aforesaid have been recounted with regard to the former ground alone.

6. Now it is significant to mention that in the reply filed