Judicial relief is denied when a litigant fails to approach the court with clean hands and conceals material facts.

ORDER :

Ashok Kumar Jain, J.

1. Instant appeal is preferred by appellant defendant Nagar Nigam after dismissal of civil regular appeal No.01/2024 on 16.03.2024 by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2023 in civil suit No.240/2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur.

2. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been filed by the appellant for taking additional documents on record relating to previous litigation between same parties and relating to suit property in question.

3. While considering the appeal on 14.05.2024 this Court has directed issuance of notice to respondent No.1 on substantial question of law as proposed in para 7 of memo of appeal. Further judgment and decree passed by the trial court was stayed as the executing court has directed the appellant to execute lease deed within a period of ten days in execution application No.04/2024.

4. An application No.02/2024 is filed by respondent plaintiff for vacation of stay order passed on 14.05.2024.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that 12539.79 sq. yard land was allotted by UIT Bharapur on 02.03.1983 to Shri Sanatan Dharma High Secondary School, Bharatpur but on breach of conditions and violation of policy of allotment, the municipal Corporation Bharatpur has cancelled allotment and direction for dispossession the Samiti. He further submitted that order was challenged before this Hon’ble Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19237/2015. He further submitted that this Hon’ble Court while allowing the writ petition has given liberty to the appellant to institute proceeding against cancellation of allotment and order for dispossession from land in issue. He further submitted that they have initiated the process under Sections 5 and 7 of Rajasthan Public Premises (Vacation of Unauthorized Occupant) Act 1964 and an order was already passed by the Estate Officer on 20.09.2016, for eviction. He further submitted that aggrieved from order an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional District Judge Bharatpur and same was dismissed on 27.03.2017 and a copy of this order was placed on record by way of additional documents. He further submitted that Sanatan Dharama Sabha has filed another civil suit No.73/2007 and same was dismissed on 28.04.2012 by learned Additional Civil Judge No.4, Bharatpur and an appeal No.255/2016 was filed by plaintiff Sanatan Dharama Samiti Bharatpur (original allottee of the land) and this appeal was dismissed on 19.07.2018. He further referred the reply of present respondent submitted in civil suit No.73/2007 and submitted that original allottee Sanatan Dharama Samiti has lent out the property in question to present respondent and thereafter renewed the rent agreement for another 20 years. He further submitted that as per admission in written statement filed in civil suit No.73/2007 present respondent has no right whatsoever to file a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. He further submitted that respondent No.2 after suppressing material facts about previous litigations has filed a fresh civil suit in connivance with the officials of appellant before the trial court and procured a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction. He also submitted that both the courts below acted contrary to settled proposition of law and without considering material on record has passed a decree in favour of present respondent. He also submitted that there is a chequered history of litigation and all were concealed and suppressed. He also admitted the conduct of officer in charge of appellant before the courts below and submitted that if any judgment or decree has been obtained by playing fraud then same is a nullity and non-est in eye of law. He further submitted that after loosing on multiple times the respondent plaintiff has filed instant civil suit, which was decreed contrary to the settled proposition of law therefore of suggested substantial question of law in para 7