JUDGMENT This petition has been filed for recalling the order passed by this Court on 8.7.97 in W.P. No. 943/97. Contention of petitioner is that in feet he is the real brother of late Maharaja Lokendrasingh. Smt. Prabharaje Laxmi, wife of Maharaja Lokendrasingh also died somewhere on 17.4.93 and for this reason property has been reverted back to heirs of Maharaja Lokendrasingh and since he is the brother and there are no other Class I heirs or other near relations he has inherited the property. It is further submitted that there was a dispute about the property between him and Mahaveersingh Shaktawat who happened to be the driver of late Maharaja Lokendrasingh. Matter was pending before the S.D.M. on the proceedings u/s. 145 CrPC and the compromise was filed. The same was accepted and the shares as compromised were allotted. The State has filed a Revision against the said order before the Sessions Judge who allowed the revision. Thereafter the matter was brought to this High Court vide Criminal Revision 155/96 decided on 18.11.96 whereby it has been held that the property shall be released as there is no breach of peace and the order of allotment of share was withdrawn. The matter was again taken up by the State Government to the Supreme Court where the S.L.P. was dismissed vide order dated 14.3.97. It is submitted that while filing the PIL (W.P. 943/97) respondent No. 1 concealed this fact of litigation between the present applicant Ranveersingh and other persons including the compromise arrived at by Ranveersingh and he falsely represented that the property has vested in the State on the principle of Law of Escheat. It is further submitted that this dispute was in the knowledge of the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in W.P. No. 943/97) despite that he concealed the fact and got ex parte order by misrepresentation of facts. Respondent No. 1 has submitted that he had the knowledge of the order of S.D.M. with respect of the compromise. He further submits that he had the knowledge of the judgment of the High Court passed in Cr. Rev. 155/96. But as Shri Ranveersingh has fraudulently obtained order from the civil Court at Indore, he filed this petition by way of PIL. He further submits that he had the knowledge of the judgment of the High Court passed in Cr. Rev. 155/96. But as Shri Ranveersingh has fraudulently obtained order from the civil Court at Indore, he filed this petition by way of PIL. It is further submitted by respondent No. 1 that Shri Ranveersingh has filed a compromise in the civil Court (before 2nd Additional District Judge) Indore which has been wrongly accepted and State has filed appeal against the said order on the ground that Additional District Judge at Indore has no jurisdiction over the property situated at Ratlam. This all goes to show that respondent No. 1 (petitioner in W.P. No. 943/97) was well aware of the facts that the dispute is going on. Ranveersingh had been putting up the claim of inheritance; both in the Court of S.D.M. Ratlam and here in the Court of Additional District Judge. He had further notice of fact that the order of S.D.M. has been partially upheld with certain modification (as the order of release of property from attachment has been upheld and the allotment of the share has been set aside.) Despite knowing all this facts he never tried to make Ranveersingh as a party. This goes to show that he concealed he fact and purposely misrepresented the facts before the Court. Shri Bhargava appearing for the State on the other hand submits that the notice was not given to the State and therefore, the State could not bring the facts to the notice of the Court. Shri Kochatta appears for respondent No. 4, submits that the order was passed at the initial stage believing the version of the petitioner and, therefore, respondent No. 4 also could not bring all this fact to the notice of the Court. From the discussion above, it is evident that the claim with respect to the property has been made by Shri Ranveersingh who has been contesting the case before the S.D.M. Sessions Judge and the High Court and on the civil side before the Additional District Judge at Indore. Despite knowing this fact, the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in W.P. No. 943/97) did not place all this information before the Court and obtained an order for appointment of Receiver of the property. In view of above, the order dated 8.7.97 is recalled and this petition succeeds to that extent. Despite knowing this fact, the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in W.P. No. 943/97) did not place all this information before the Court and obtained an order for appointment of Receiver of the property. In view of above, the order dated 8.7.97 is recalled and this petition succeeds to that extent. Since respondent No. 1 has obtained an order by concealing the fact and, therefore, he is saddled with the cost of Rs. 500/-, the same shall be credited to the State.