Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Yunus vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Utraulla Distt. ... on 24 September, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:59260
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5622 of 2025
Mohd. Yunus
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Civil Judge (J.D.) Utraulla Distt. Balrampur And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Naqibullah Khan, Ali Abbas Ansari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Ali Abbas Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jalaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel put his appearance and has also filed his Vakalatnama, on behalf of the respondent No.2, which is taken on record.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) direct the opposite party No.1 to decide the regular Suit No.190/2024 and the application for interim relief pending in the regular suit within certain period of time.
(ii) direct the opposite parties to comply the judgment of this Hon'ble Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C No.19053/2022 as no administrative order is required to pass when the regular suit is pending."
3. At the outset, it has been submitted by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has conveniently concealed the material facts inasmuch as the petitioner had filed two petitions earlier, one before the Division Bench of this Court and another before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the relief primarily claimed in the writ petition filed before the Division Bench was in respect of the direction to the respondents to decide the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and till then the shop of the petitioner as alleged to be standing on the disputed land may not be demolished.
4. It is pointed out that the said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner once again attempted to misadventure by filing another petition seeking expeditious disposal of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the respondent No.2 had raised preliminary objection before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the same counsel, who has filed the instant petition as well, not pressed his petition and it was accordingly dismissed.
5. It has further been pointed out that thereafter another petition was filed which was dismissed by this Court.
6. It is urged that without taking the liberty to file a fresh filing of multiple petitions concealing the filing of earlier two petitions amounts to abuse of the process of law and in such circumstances, it is urged that the instant petition be dismissed with heavy cost.
7. The Court had specifically put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has disclosed the filing of earlier three petitions to which it has been answered that only Writ Petition No.907 of 2023 (A-227) has been disclosed and the copy of the order has been placed on record as Annexure No.1. However, he could not dispute the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions, but there is no mention of the same in the instant petition.
8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material available on record.
9. Apparently, the objections raised by the counsel for the respondent No.2 appears to have some substance. This Court finds that the petitioner claims that he has a lease from the owner of the land over which he had raised his shop. In Paragraph-8, it is stated that the petitioner filed a suit bearing No.190/2014 and it is this suit of which expedition is sought. In Paragraph-9 and 10, the petitioner has preferred certain decisions of this Court and in terms whereof, it has been held that the policy and administrative authorities are not required to interfere where civil suits are pending. This paragraph assumes significance for the reason that this very same issue which was raised by the petitioner while filing WRIT-C No.249 of 2023 before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench by means of the order dated 13.01.2023, after quoting the prayer made in the said petition and also noticing the judgments, which were relied upon by the petitioner specifically dismissed the petition.
10. Significantly, thereafter the petitioner filed another petition bearing Writ Petition No.541 of 2023 (A-227) and in the said petition, the prayer sought was disposal of an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
11. Counsel for the respondent No.2 had raised a preliminary objection that for the same very relief the petitioner had filed a petition before the Division Bench of this Court which was dismissed and once the petitioner was confronted with the same, counsel withdrew the petition as not pressed.
12. It is extremely distressing to note that despite having filed three petitions including Writ Petition No.907 of 2023 (A-227), the petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts.
13. The Apex Court in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and another v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others, (2013) 11 SCC 531 has categorically held that whenever a person approaches the Court, he must do so with clean hands and all details regarding the petition must be disclosed and non-disclosure amounts to concealing material facts and such a litigant can be thrown out from the litigation at any stage.
14. In light of the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench in WRIT-C No.249 of 2023 dated 13.01.2023 and the order passed in Writ Petition No.541 of 2023 (A-227) dated 07.02.2023, which have not been disclosed and they relate to the same controversy and indirect the petitioner is trying to achieve something which he has failed to achieve by approaching the Court of law on three earlier occasions. Such practice is deprecated coupled with the fact that the counsel, who has been same in all three petitions ought to have been more cautious. He himself does not appear to have guided the client appropriately. This conduct of the counsel is also censured.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the petitioner does not deserve any leniency and for the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited within a period of two weeks from today before the Senior Registrar of this Court. It is made clear that in case if the cost of Rs.20,000/- is not deposited by the petitioner, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In case of non-compliance the copy of this order will be forwarded by the Senior Registrar of this Court to the District Magistrate Balrampur for compliance. However, upon deposit this amount will be given to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
(Jaspreet Singh,J.)
September 24, 2025
Rakesh/-
