Court upheld the principle that a party must come with clean hands; concealment of material facts undermines claims for relief.

1. Heard Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff - petitioner and Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant - respondent No.3.

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue an order or direction in exercise of supervisory power of Hon'ble High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India setting aside the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 passed by District Judge, Mainpuri in Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 2023 (Sonali Jain v. Samyak Jain and others) ( Annexure No. 10 to the petition) by which the stay application, paper no. 5 - C - 2 has been rejected as well as the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mainpuri in Original Suit No. 136 of 2023 (Sonali Jain v. Samyak Jain and others) ( Annexure No. 6 to the petition);
ii) Issue an order or direction in exercise of supervisory power of Hon'ble High Court under Art.227 of the restraining the defendants / respondents from interfering into actual and physical possession of the shop in question during the pendency of the Original Suit No. 136 of 2023 (Sonali Jain v. Samyak Jain and others)."

3. The aforementioned orders are under challenge by the plaintiff - petitioner, who had filed a suit (O.S. No.136 of 2023) for injunction against the defendants / respondents. In that suit the plaintiff - petitioner filed an application paper No.6 - C - 2 praying for an interim injunction. The defendant - respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed their objection paper No.33 - C - 1.

4. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff - petitioner had filed a certified copy of a sale deed dated 19.2.2011 by means of which the property in dispute was transferred to her. The defendant / respondents had filed an attested copy of the sale deed dated 26.8.2019 whereby, the plaintiff - petitioner had transferred the property in dispute to the defendant - respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It was also noticed that the another attested copy of a sale deed dated 25.8.2021 was filed, whereby the defendant - respondent No.1 transferred his portion of the property in dispute to the defendant - respondent No.3. Another attested copy of a sale deed dated 23.2.2022 was filed which reflected that the defendant - respondent No.2 had transferred her portion of property in dispute in favour of the defendant - respondent No.3. It was noted that, as such, the property in dispute was transferred in favour of the defendant - respondent No.3. It was observed that, prima facie, the owner of the property in dispute was the defendant - respondent No.3 and the plaintiff - petitioner did not appear to be the owner of any part of the said property.

5. It was observed that the plaintiff - petitioner had not come with clean hands before the trial Court, and had concealed the fact that after execution of the sale deed in her favour on 19.2.2011 the property in dispute was transferred several times. That it was also concealed that the property in dispute was transferred by her on 26.8.2019 to the defendant - respondent Nos. 1 and 2. That there was no denial by the plaintiff - petitioner of the sale deeds dated 25.08.2021 and 23.02.2022. It was also observed that the plaintiff - petitioner has also not clarified that what is her status and the plaintiff - petitioner appeared to be a trespasser. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court, the application for temporary injunction was rejected.

6. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff - petitioner, an application No. 5C - 2 was moved on her behalf in which an interim relief was sought for restraining the defendant - respondents from i