Honble SHETHNA, J.–Against the impugned order of ejectment from the land in question passed by the Tehsildar on 31.3.95 (Annex.-1) the petitioner filed appeal and also made an application for stay; but, the stay application was rejected. Suppressing that fact of filing appeal and rejection of the stay application, the petitioner also filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the impugned order at Annex.-1 passed by the Tehsildar. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned member of the Board of Revenue solely on the ground of suppression of material fact viz., that though the appeal was pending and the stay application filed in appeal was also rejected yet without disclosing the same the revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. This order is at Annex.-11. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order Annex.-1 passed by the Tehsildar of ejectment and impugned order Annex.-11 dated 14.02.96 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. (2). Learned counsel Shri Kalla vehemently submitted that the Board of Revenue committed an error in dismissing the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner could not have filed revision when the appeal was maintainable against the impugned order at Annex.-1. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hanuman Singh vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. (1). Similarly, he has relied upon the judgment of the Board of Revenue in the case of Bhanwar Lal vs. Bhabhoot Mal & Another (2). (3). In Hanuman Singhs case (supra), without availing the remedy of appeal to the appellate authority straight-away revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which was rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground that remedy of appeal was not exhausted. The learned Single Bench of this Court found the approach of the learned Board of Revenue absolutely wrong and set aside the order by holding that the Board of Revenue could not have outright rejected the revision petition as not maintainable without applying its mind merely on the ground that remedy of appeal was not exhausted. Similarly, in Bhanwar Lals case (supra), direct revision was filed without exhausting the remedy of appeal and the Board of Revenue held that a direct revision application to the Board was not barred. (4). Similarly, in Bhanwar Lals case (supra), direct revision was filed without exhausting the remedy of appeal and the Board of Revenue held that a direct revision application to the Board was not barred. (4). The facts of the present case are totally different. The revision petition was not dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 14.2.96 (Annex-11) on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal; but it has dismissed the revision petition on the ground of suppression of material fact from the Court. The Board of Revenue has clearly stated at page 4 of its order that against the impugned order at Annex.-1 dated 31.3.95 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority alongwith an application for stay but the stay application was rejected, and during the pendency of that appeal, the revision petition was filed by the petitioner suppressing the fact of filing of appeal before the appellate authority. On this ground of suppression of material fact the revision petition was dismissed by the Board of Revenue; and not on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal. Thus, both the aforesaid judgments one of this Court and one of the Board of Revenue cited by Mr. Kalla have no application at all to the facts of this case. (5). Law on this point is very well settled. Persons who do not come to the Court with clean hands are not entitled to any relief; and , without going into the merits of the case the matter was required to be dismissed, therefore, in my opinion, the Board of Revenue rightly rejected the revision petition of the petitioner only on this ground of suppression of material fact by not disclosing the fact of filing the appeal and rejection of the stay application in appeal, without going into the merits of the case. (6). It is unfortunate that learned counsel Shri Kalla cited the aforesaid two judgments before this Court which have no application on the facts of this case. Only on the ground of suppression of material facts in revision before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue rejected the revision petition therefore, I was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. But, learned counsel Shri Kalla insisted and argued for about 10 minutes on merits also. (7). Only on the ground of suppression of material facts in revision before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue rejected the revision petition therefore, I was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. But, learned counsel Shri Kalla insisted and argued for about 10 minutes on merits also. (7). It is no-doubt true that the doors of the Court are always open for everyone but one must come to the Court with clean hands and he should not suppress any important and relevant material fact either from this Court or from the lower Court. Merely because writ petition lies that does not mean that in each and every case the petition be filed. It is this type of false and frivolous cases which are adding to the backlog of cases which is more than one lakh in number. It is high time for this Court to deal with this type of matters strictly by imposing special cost so that it may set an example to others also that no one has right to waste the valuable time of the Court. (8). In view of the above, this petition fails and dismissed with special cost of Rs. 10,000/-which the petitioner shall deposit with the Registrar General of this Court. On deposit, the amount will be utilised for legal-aid purpose. (9). At the request of learned counsel Shri Kalla, the time to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/-is extended to two months.