IN THE HIGH COURT OF JJDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9131 of 2006. Allauddin son of Shri Peeru Khan and Others Versus Jagdish Singh son of late Shri Shiv Ram Singh & Others Date of Order :::: 30/07/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Deepak Saraswat, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Counsel for the Respondents
Per Court :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
At the very out-set, the learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed because the plaintiff had made false averments in the writ petition in Para 1 itself.
Attention of the Court to the averments made in the writ petition in Para 1 have been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents, wherein it has been alleged that the defendant, who was the petitioner had moved an application for impleading Smt. Jainub wife of Shri Ramzan as party to the suit.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid averments assumes importance because of the fact that the case as set-up by the petitioners is that after the said application allowing/directing Smt. Jainub wife of Shri Ramzan to be impleaded as party was allowed, it was necessary for the Court to have issued notices to the newly added party and as such on the said date the order for proceedings ex-parte against the defendants could not have been passed.
In support of the above, the learned counsel for the respondents produced before the Court the copy of the application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. filed on 28.10.2005 for impleading Smt. Jainub wife of Shri Ramzan as party. The said application was filed by Smt. Jainub herself and in that view of the matter on the application being allowed, which had been filed by Smt. Jainub, the question of issuing summons to the new added party did not arise.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in the face of the above would not dispute the above facts and contended that the aforesaid averments have probably been incorporated under some misapprehension.
Be that as it may, since the averments made in Para 1 of the writ petition are false and are also material, so far as the subject matter of the writ petition is concerned.
In view of the above, I am inclined to dismiss the writ petition on account of the false averments having been made in the writ petition. The petitioners have not come with the clean-hand.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Dalip Singh) J.
ashok/