Suppression of material facts and failure to approach the court with clean hands disentitles a litigant to equitable relief.

The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding 11 Bighas of land in Gwalior, claiming title via an oral agreement to sell from 2006 and, alternatively, adverse possession

Seeking to protect their alleged possession from dispossession during revenue demarcation proceedings, the petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC

The trial court rejected the application on 24.01.2026, a decision upheld by the lower appellate court on 07.05.2026

The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings under Article 227 of the Constitution, asserting they were in "settled possession"

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a temporary injunction against dispossession when their original application only sought to restrain alienation of the property

2. Whether the petitioners’ failure to disclose the exact nature of their application before the trial court amounted to a suppression of material facts disentitling them to equitable relief

3. Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding possession in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227

The court applied Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC regarding the three pillars of temporary injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

Injunction is an equitable relief granted only to those with "clean hands" as established in Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai

Litigant's duty to disclose all material facts as per Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society

Appellate interference in discretionary orders is restricted unless the lower court acted arbitrarily or perversely as per Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd.

The Court found that while the petitioners argued for protection against dispossession, their actual application before the trial court (verified via the High Court's internal ERP system from a previous petition, M.P. No. 163/2026) only prayed for an injunction against alienation, not dispossession

By failing to file their original application and misrepresenting the relief sought, the petitioners suppressed material facts and failed the "clean hands" test required for equitable relief

The Court observed that electricity bills provided did not specifically identify the suit land, and thus the concurrent findings of the lower courts—that the petitioners failed to prove possession—were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227

The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless perverse. The miscellaneous petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Nine Civil Judge (24.01.2026) and the Fifteenth District Judge (07.05.2026) were upheld.