K C SUBBAIAH Vs. PRL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking the direction for the protection and preservation of the gomal land at Sy.No.315/1 of Ajri Village, Virajpet Thaluk, Kodagu District.

(2.) Sri R.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has raised the threshold objection to the entertaining of this petition on merits. He submits that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material facts. He submits that in O.S.No.84/2006, the petitioner's I.A.No.4 for temporary injunction was dismissed and the fifth respondent's I.A.No.6 for temporary injunction was granted restraining the petitioner or anybody claming under him from interfering with the possession of the respondent No.5 in respect of the suit schedule property as also from obstructing the disposal of solid waste by the respondent No.5 in the schedule property subject to the respondent No.5 following the State Pollution Control Board's norms. He submits that a copy of the order passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge in this regard is at Annexure-R8. He submits that the petitioner filed M.A.3/2006 aggrieved by the temporary injunction order granted in favour of the respondent No.5. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court [Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division) and JMFC, Virajpet) for default on 19.9.2009. He submits that O.S.No.84/2006 itself is also dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.6.2012. He submits that none of these things are ever whispered in the memorandum of this writ petition.

(3.) He submits that this petition is liable to be dismissed with costs, as the petitioner has withheld all the material information from this Court. In support of his submission, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of BHASKAR LAXMAN JADHAV AND OTHERS v. KARAMVEER KAKASAHEB WAGH EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS, 2013 AIR(SCW) 34, wherein it is held that a party coming to the Court is required to make full disclosure of the material facts. It is not for the party, but it is for the Court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision. Paragraph No.46 read out by him is as follows: