- (1.) B. M. Lal and B. K. Sharma, JJ. Heard Sri Shankar Suan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. K. Sachan, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY this petition petitioner seeks an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accent payment from the petitioner in terms of his allotment letter dated 24. 6. 86. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears that by an order dated 24. 6. 86 the land in question was leased out by the respondents 1 and 2 in favour of petitioner for a period of 7 years which came to an end on 23. 6. 1993 but making inter polations in the original lease-deed, figure 7 was changed to 99 and on that basis petitioner claimed possession over the land in question and brought an action against the respondents. By filings a civil suit before the Civil Judge Kanpur, petitioner sought injunction restraining the respondents from taking over possession of the land in ques tion. However, ultimately the injunction was rejected but the same was maintained in appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition suppressing material facts, ob tained stay order and by virtue of interim order continuing his possession over the land in dispute. The facts narrated by the respon dents are startling as to how the petitioner approached extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by suppressing material facts and abusing process of the Court and obtained stay order. One who approaches this Court is expected to have come with clean hands and this Court exercises its extra ordinary jurisdiction to maintain rule of law and not to protect those who violate the rule by suppressing material facts in their petitions. In the instant case the petitioner appears to have no respect for the rule of law and truth and he appears to have misled the Court by suppressing material facts and obtained the stay order.
(3.) UNDER the facts and circumstances of instant case not only the writ petition is to be dismissed but the petitioner is to be sad dled with exemplary cost so that the same may be a lesson to others too and in future no such petitions may be filed whereas the facts disclosed against the petitioner indeed require his prosecution but taking a lenient view of the matter this Court is of the opinion that the exemplary cost of Rs. 25. 000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 would meet the ends of justice instead of taking penal action against him. [see Dr. Buddhi Kola Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran and others (JT1996 (7) SC 265] In the result petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order is discharged. Petitioner is directed to deposit exemplary cost of Rs. 25000/- for illegally occupying the land and filing frivolous petition which shall be recovered by the respondent No. 1.;