Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The case involves a revision petition filed by petitioners-defendants (Tejpal Singh & Anr.) challenging an order by the Addl. District Judge that set aside a dismissal of a stay application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. (!)
• The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property, including raising construction or excavating the land. (!)
• The plaint specifically stated that no other litigation was pending or decided between the parties regarding the subject matter, except for one pending case. (!)
• The defendants raised an objection that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts by failing to disclose that three suits had previously been filed regarding the same cause of action, two of which were withdrawn immediately after notice was issued. (!)
• The lower Court initially dismissed the application for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC due to the plaintiffs' suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands. (!)
• The lower Appellate Court, however, partly accepted the appeal, observing that there was no element of concealment and that withdrawal of earlier suits did not bar fresh litigation, thereby ordering a status quo. (!)
• The High Court found that the plaintiffs had filed three prior suits (Civil Suit No.450, No.618, and No.623) concerning the same property and relief, but only disclosed the third pending suit in the current filing. (!) (!) (!)
• The Court noted that the earlier suits contained specific recitals stating no other litigation was pending, making the silence regarding the first two withdrawn suits a deliberate suppression of material facts. (!) (!)
• The Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Ramjas Foundation and Dalip Singh) establishing that a party approaching the court with "tainted hands" or by suppressing material facts is not entitled to any discretionary relief. (!) (!) (!)
• The Court held that the suppression of material facts regarding previous litigation is a sufficient ground to decline the discretionary relief of an injunction. (!)
• Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order by the lower Appellate Court ordering status quo was set aside. (!)