Judgment Milap Chandra Jain, J.-This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated August 23, 1991 by which the writ petition for quashing the allotment order dated 13-10-1986 (Annex. 4) made in favour of the Respondent No. 4 Jatto Bai in respect of 39 bigha 11 biswa of land situated in I.G.N.P. Colonisation Tehsil Anopgarh, has been dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case as the learned single Judge has given them in detail in his impugned order. 3. During his arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant laid great stress on the fact that the allotment order was passed in favour of Respondent No. in respect of the disputed land after the stay order was granted by the learned Munsiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and as such it was void. It may be mentioned at the outset that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter for which the suit was filed and as such the stay could be ignored, being without jurisdiction. 4. Paras No. 3 and 4 of the writ petition run as under: “3. That when the petitioner and his other co-owners had imminent danger of interference in their possession, they filed a Civil Original Suit No. 19/86 before the Munsiff , Ganganagar for permanent injunction against the non-Petitioners No. 1 and 2 along with others. 4. That in the said suit, the petitioner had also moved an application for temporary injunction on which the Munsiff passed an order for maintaining status quo on 29-5-1986 and thereafter, the said order was extended again and again. A true copy of certified copies of the orders dated 29-5-1986 and 2-7-1986 are being submitted herewith and marked as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively.” Section 207, Rajathan Tenancy Act runs as under: “207. Suits and applications congnizable by revenue Court only. --(1) All suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue Court. (2) No Court other than a revenue Court shall take congnizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. (2) No Court other than a revenue Court shall take congnizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Explanation --If the cause of action is one is respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue Court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil Court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with that which the revenue Court could have granted.” Serial No. 8A of Third Schedule of Rajasthan Tenancy Act contains the entry relating to suits for injunction. Admittedly, a copy of the plaint was neither annexed with the writ petition nor was produced before the learned single Judge despute his repeated directions to show it. The reason is obvious. It would have revealed that the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit and to pass the stay order. Above quoted paras No. 3 and 4 of the writ petition and Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act leave no manner of doubt that the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the stay order passed by him was void, being without jurisdiction. It could well be ignored. 5-6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified to observe: “Be that as it may, now the petitioners in the garb of a technical order of status quo, retained this possession by misuse of the process of the Court which simply cannot be allowed. It appears that the petitioners have intentionally suppresseed the copy of the plaint. They ought to have filed it before the Court so that, the Court could have considered as what facts were disclosed in it and what were suppressed. Even the stay order was only to maintain status quo upto 22-7-1986. I will not enter into this controversy as to whether the stay order has come to an end by efflux of time or it still remains in force in view of the order of this Court whereby further proceedings were stayed but this much is clear that it has not been extended by any positive order after 22-7-1986. I will not enter into this controversy as to whether the stay order has come to an end by efflux of time or it still remains in force in view of the order of this Court whereby further proceedings were stayed but this much is clear that it has not been extended by any positive order after 22-7-1986. No request was also made to this Court in the revision petition that this limited stay order granted upto a particular date be saved. Actually such persons who approach the Judicial Courts by suppressing material facts, and get the stay orders from the Judicial Forums, after the decision of their Special Appeal by this Court, whereby their rights have been finally determined and their claims have been totally rejected by holding that they are devoid of any force, such writ petitions deserve to be dismissed with heavy costs so that such unscrupulous persons who from the very initiation of the proceedings are actuated by fraudulent intentions, may not misuse the process of the Court by such bogus methods i.e. to remain in possession of the land by filing such bogus suits when they have no semblance of right to remain on the land. If any stay order has been flouted, remedies are provided under Order 39 and they should have been availed but that has not been done and the petitioner has come to this Court and has dragged the respondents in litigation and thrust upon the respondents a litigation which could safely have been avoided.” and to impose costs to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. 7. The costs have not been deposited so far despite the time granted by this Court on 2-9-1994. The appeal which is pending for admission is liable to be dismissed on this count also. 8-9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned single Judge has wrongly imposed the costs. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was not available to persons like the appellant who repeatedly circumvented the statutory procedure and remedies. The learned single Judge has rightly exercised discretion in dismissing the writ petition and imposing heavy costs. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. 11. The learned single Judge has rightly exercised discretion in dismissing the writ petition and imposing heavy costs. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. 11. Theappellant is directed to hand over the actual and physical possession of the disputed land to the Collector, Sriganganagar within one month from today if not already handed over failing which the Collector, Sriganganagar will take necessary step for the recovery of the possession of the disputed land from the appellant. In case it has been handed over, he will duly intimate so through his affidavit to be sent to the Collector, Sriganganagar through registered AID post, both within one month from today. 12. Copies of this order be sent to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 forthwith for information and necessary action.