DILBAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner in this case reads as under:-

(2.) After institution of this writ petition, the 4th respondent got himself impleaded. It was his case that the house property claimed by the petitioner as House No.264 is actually House No.265, which was owned by him.

(3.) Further, Mr. Arun Luthra, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, would inform this Court that the petitioner willfully suppressed the fact that he earlier filed a suit and suffered an adverse judgment in relation to the very same house property which is the subject matter of this writ petition. He would point out that judgment dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure R-4/1) was not even mentioned by the petitioner deliberately and that this showed the lack of bonafides on his part.