A petitioner seeking equitable relief must disclose all material facts; suppression leads to dismissal.

1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation to issue a Writ of declaration to declare the approval of the layout bearing DTCP No.351/73 granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of 10th respondent and declaring the DTCP No.351/73 layout as null and void and direct the respondents 1 to 8 to demolish the existing structure raised by the respondents 10 to 13 illegally based upon the above said unlawful approval granted to him, which construction situated in Survey No.392/12 measuring and extent of Ac 0.20 cents and another property measuring an extent of Ac 0.66 cents comprised in Survey No.392/11 and Survey No.392/12 situated at S. Kolathur, Madipakkam, Sholinganallur Taluk.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the above mentioned property belongs to Ponniamman Temple, which is under the control of the 4th respondent. Further, the petitioner contended that the respondents 10 to 13 had encroached the Temple land and are putting up construction.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 10 to 13 submitted that the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.534 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right in respect of the suit property and from ever evicting the petitioner from the suit property without following due process of law.

4. On a perusal of the Plaint Schedule, it is clear that the petitioner has filed the suit in respect of an extent of Ac 0.20 cents comprised in Survey No.392/12 and an extent of Ac 0.66 cents comprised in Survey No.392/11 situated in Kolathur, Madipakkam, Alandur Taluk. The learned counsel appearing for the 11th respondent also enclosed a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.534 of 2017 in the typed set of papers.

5. The suit is posted for further hearing on 07.01.2019. Therefore, from the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is clear that the schedule of property in the suit as well as in the Writ Petition are one and the same and the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition during the pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.534 of 2017.

6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner has not obtained any interim order before the trial Court, he has filed the present Writ Petition suppressing the filing of the suit in O.S.No.534 of 2017.

7. Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent - the Commissioner, the HR & CE Department submitted that the land does not belong to the Temple and it is a private land.

8. When the 4th respondent himself submits that the land does not belong to the Temple, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. That apart, on a perusal of the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is clear that the petitioner has willfully suppressed the filing of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.534 of 2017. When this Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether any Civil Suit has been filed by the petitioner, initially, the learned counsel replied that no Civil Suit has been filed. Subsequently, on seeing the plaint in the typed set of papers filed by the 11th respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner