Suppression of material facts by a party is a sufficient ground to decline discretionary relief.

JUDGMENT

Archana Puri, J. - Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, whereby, an order dated 30.10.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge, thereby dismissing the stay application, filed by the respondents, has been set aside.

2. The material facts, as culled out from the paper book are as follows:-

That, the respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit, thereby seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession, changing the nature of the suit property by way of raising any kind of construction, excavating, diminishing the value and utility or creating any kind of hindrance or obstruction in using the land, cutting the trees comprised in Khewat no.53/53, Khatauni no.57, Khasra no.12//22/1(1- 1), 12//22/2 (5-19), 12//26/1 (0-7), Khewat no.50/50, Khatauni no.54, Khasra no.20//2/2 (5-3), 20//5/1 (6-12), Khewat no.51/51, Khatauni no.55, Khasra no.19//1 (8-0), 19//2/1 (1-8), Khewat no.54/54, Khatauni no.58, Khasra no.12//23/1 (0-7), 20//3 (7-13), 20//4 (8-0), 20//5/2 (1-8), 20//8 (8- 3), 20//9 (2-2), Khewat No.42/42, Khatauni no.45, Khasra no.12//9/2 (0-7), situated in the area of village Jajja Khurd, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

3. Therein, it was stated that the suit land is joint between the plaintiffs, defendants and others and they are cultivating, using the land in dispute, jointly as per their share and is yet to be partitioned. Also, they stated about the defendants to be threatening to change the nature of the suit property and to raise the construction and excavate it, without the consent and permission of the plaintiffs, without getting the land partitioned and want to diminish the value and utility of the agricultural land, for which they have no right.

4. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, there is specific mention made that no other case or litigation, with regard to the subject matter in question, is pending or decided between the parties, except a case titled as 'Piara Singh and another vs. Navjit Kaur and another, pending for 01.10.2020 and 'Tej Pal Singh vs. Gurbakash Kaur' pending for 19.10.2020.

5. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed along with the suit.

6. At the inception stage, ad interim injunction was granted, thereby, restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession, changing the nature of the suit land by way of raising any kind of construction, excavating, diminishing the value and utility or creating any kind of hindrance or obstruction in using the suit land or cutting the trees of the suit land, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, till the next date.

7. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Court, present petitioners-defendants made appearance and filed written statement, thereby taking preliminary objection that plaintiffs (respondents of the present case), have not approached the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the Court. Therein, it was stated that three cases had already been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, one after the other, regarding the same cause of action and when the injunction was not granted, two suits were withdrawn. The details of filing of three suits and the manner of withdrawal of the two suits, had been given in the written statement.

8. It was also asserted that in fact, the plaintiffs are playing fraud by misleading/not disclosing the Court about the fact of previous litigation. Besides, taking other objections, vis-a-vis, locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the present suit, maintainability and cause of action, on merits, it was asserted that parties are in separate possession of the suit property to the extent of their respective shares, without any element of jointness. Further, it was also asserted that plaintiffs themselves admitted that the parties to the suit are co-owners and cultivating and using the land jointly, as per their shares.

9. After hearing the arguments, vide order