Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yogesh Maini vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 April, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056397-DB
2024:PHHC:056397-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.107 and 249 LPA-907-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.04.2024
Yogesh Maini ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present : Ms.Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate, for the appellant.
*****
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
1. Through the present intra court appeal challenge is made to the judgment
dated 21.09.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the
appellant's writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not approached the Court
with clean hands.
2. Through filing of a writ petition the appellant sought quashing of a
memo dated 15.07.2019 issued by Assistant Town Planner, Zone D, Municipal
Corporation, Ludhiana (for short, the MC) through which the irregular construction
made by respondents No.4 to 8 was ordered to be compounded. The appellant had
further prayed for issuance of directions to the MC to take appropriate action against
respondents No.4 to 8 for raising illegal construction with a further prayer for
demolishing the illegal construction already raised by respondents No.4 to 8.
3. On being put to notice the respondents submitted that for the same cause,
as raised by the appellant through his writ petition, he, alongwith others, had also filed
a civil suit which he had withdrawn on 29.07.2020. At the time of withdrawal of his
civil suit no permission had been granted to the appellant to either institute a fresh civil
suit or file a writ petition before this Court and that the fact of filing and withdrawal of
the civil suit had been intentionally withheld by the appellant in his writ petition.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056397-DB
LPA-907-2020 [2] 2024:PHHC:056397-DB
Thus, both on the grounds of res judicata as also for having not come to the court with
clean hands, the appellant deserved no relief.
4. The appellant did not deny the factum of filing and withdrawal of the
civil suit. He also did not dispute that the afore facts had not been disclosed by him in
his writ petition.
5. In the light of the above, the learned Single Judge was of the view that
the appellant had not come to the Court with clean hands and therefore, on this ground,
dismissed his writ petition with costs. Such order of the learned Single Judge is the
subject matter of challenge through the instant appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that for the same
cause as raised by the appellant through his writ petition he had earlier filed a civil suit
which he had withdrawn on 29.07.2020 and that this fact, due to a bonafide error,
could not be disclosed by him in his writ petition but for this inadvertent lapse on his
part, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing his petition without even deciding
the issues taken up by the appellant against the illegal construction by respondents
No.4 to 8.
7. After considering the afore submission made on behalf of the appellant
we do not find the same to be worthy of acceptance.
8. It is not disputed that for the same cause as raised by the appellant
through his writ petition he, alongwith others, had earlier filed a civil suit which,
through the following order dated 29.07.2020, on his asking, was permitted to be
withdrawn: -
"Plaintiff No. 5 Yogesh Maini had got his statement recorded to the effect
that he did not wish to pursue the present suit and that the same might be dismissed as
withdrawn. The remaining plaintiffs, some of them appeared in person and the
remaining through their counsel, had given their consent with regard to withdrawal of
the suit by plaintiff No.5. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of and the case
stands dismissed as withdrawn qua plaintiff No. 5. The case stands adjourned to
04.09.2020 for the purpose already fixed."
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056397-DB
LPA-907-2020 [3] 2024:PHHC:056397-DB
9. A perusal of the afore quoted order clearly reveals that through such
order no permission had been granted to the appellant to file a fresh suit and/or a writ
petition.
10. It is not disputed before us that the afore civil suit was withdrawn by the
appellant after he, alongwith others, had failed to get interim injunction from the civil
court.
11. Admittedly, the appellant neither sought any review of the afore quoted
order nor challenged it.
12. In the writ petition preferred by the appellant he did not disclose the
filing and withdrawal of his civil suit.
13. Filing and withdrawal of a civil suit on the same cause of action was a
crucial fact which the appellant should have disclosed in his writ petition especially
when he had withdrawn his civil suit only after he had failed to get interim injunction
prayed for by him. Such a crucial fact was withheld by the appellant. Thus, he did not
approach this Court with clean hands. Therefore, he disentitled himself to be heard
even on merits.
14. In the light of the above, we find no error, in law or in fact, in the
dismissal of the appellant's writ petition by the learned Single Judge.
15. Dismissed.
[DEEPAK SIBAL]
JUDGE
25.04.2024 [DEEPAK MANCHANDA]
shamsher JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
