Suppression of material facts regarding pending civil litigation disentitles a petitioner to discretionary writ relief.

The petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 27338/2025) seeking correction of revenue entries.

The Court disposed of the petition on 29.07.2025, directing authorities to decide the representation within 90 days.

In compliance, the revenue authorities changed the entries on 16.03.2026.

The review petitioner (respondent in the original writ) moved this Court seeking a recall of the order, arguing that the writ petitioner suppressed the existence of Civil Suit No. 105/2023 pending between the parties regarding the same property.

The respondent’s counsel admitted that the pendency of the suit was not mentioned in the writ petition.

1. Whether the non-disclosure of a pending civil suit regarding the same subject matter constitutes "suppression of material facts" justifying the recall of a court order.

2. Whether a litigant who approaches the court with "unclean hands" is entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principles of equity and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, defining "material fact" as information essential for determining the lis or granting relief.

Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court emphasized that litigants who resort to falsehood or suppression are not entitled to relief.

Shri K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority, the Court held that parties must mandatorily disclose all past or present legal proceedings concerning the subject matter to prevent inconsistent judicial orders.

Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, stating it is the litigant's obligation to disclose all facts, leaving the determination of relevance to the Court.

The Court found that the writ petitioner deliberately omitted the fact that a civil suit (No. 105/2023) was already pending adjudication regarding the property in question.

The Court reasoned that the High Court, as a court of equity, relies on the "face value" of statements made in petitions; therefore, any inaccurate or misleading statement betrays the Court's confidence.

By failing to mention the suit, the petitioner practiced "hide and seek" with the facts to obtain a favorable direction for revenue entry correction.

The Court determined that since the very basis of writ jurisdiction rests on true and full disclosure, the suppression of a pending suit is a "material" omission that pollutes the stream of justice, rendering the original order and subsequent administrative actions void.

The Court dismissed the original writ petition (W.P. No. 27338/2025) due to suppression of material information and quashed the subsequent revenue order dated 16.03.2026 passed in pursuance of the recalled direction; the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the writ petitioners.