AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.D. Anand, J.—The petitioners before this Court made an abortive attempt to get impleaded, as a party, to the cause under reference. The bid having been negatived, they came up in revision wherein the challenge was ultimately withdrawn on 9.10.2008. (The petition had been filed on 4.10.2008).
While disposing of a plea under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., the learned Trial Court restrained the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from "changing/transferring the electricity supply to the industry of the plaintiff from existing industrial feeder to any other feeder till the final disposal of the suit."
The defendants-respondents i.e. Executive Engineer (Operation), UHBVN, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt. And UHBVN Ltd. through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula are not indicated to have filed any appeal against that order.
The petitioners before this Court i.e. HSIDC Estate Industrial Association through its President Shri Dayal Chand Gupta, Ambala Cantt. and Dayal Chand Gupta, President, HSIDC Estate Industrial Association, Ambala Cantt. filed a plea before the learned 1st Appellate Court to obtain the leave of that Court to file an appeal.
That plea was declined by the learned 1st Appellate Court by observing that the petitioners were not entitled to grant of any relief as they had concealed the factum of withdrawal of the petition aforementioned on 9.10.2008 ("Admittedly applicants, while during pendency of the civil suit moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.8.2008, aggrieved of the said order, applicant filed revision petition before the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 4.20.2008, which fact has not been disclosed by the applicant")
Faced with the predicament of having to indicate whether the above observations by the learned Trial Court contain any factual error, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has no option but to concede that the fact aforementioned was indeed omitted from the relevant plea.
There is plethora of law on the point that a litigant (this expression is being intentionally used because the endeavour made by the petitioners before this Court for their impleadment as a party had been negatived by the learned Trial Court and the challenge to the validity of that order had been dismissed as withdrawn on 9.10.2008) who does not come to the Court with clean hands or intentionally conceals a relevant fact, is not entitled to the grant of any discretionary relief of injunction.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, points out that petitioners have again filed a petition against the order dated 18.8.2008 of the learned Trial Court vide which their plea under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment as a party had been negatived and the matter is yet to come up for hearing. The fact of filing/pendency of that challenge is not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition which is being disposed of on the premise that the petitioners are not entitled to equitable relief of injunction. They are guilty of concealment of a relevant fact in the impugned plea filed before the learned 1st Appellate Court.
The petition shall stand dismissed in limine.