ORDER Misc. Case No. 7544 of 2011 16.5.2011 — This application has been filed by opposite parties 4 and 5 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 24.3.2011 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 4786 of 2011 and 4785 of 2011. Heard Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Add. Government for the State, Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no.4 and 6, Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no.5 and Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no.7. On 24.3.2011, while issuing notice of admission in the writ petition this Court passed the following ex-parte interim orders in Misc. Case No.4786 of 2011 and Misc. Case 4785 of 2011. (1)Smt. Singdha Mishra, Reader, H.O.D., English Christ College was directed to takeover the charge of the Principal of Christ College from Shri P.R. Harichandan, who was going to retire on 31.3.2011 and the said arrangement was directed to be purely temporary in nature and subject to result of the writ application. (2)Opposite party no.5 was restrained from functioning as the Secretary of the Christ College and the present Principal was directed to function as the Secretary and after his retirement Smt. Snigdha Mishra, Reader, H.O.D., English was directed to function as the Secretary, till next date. The aforesaid interim orders are continuing till today. Mr. J. Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for O.P.5 drew our attention to the fact that challenging the action of the present petitioner to oust him from the post of Secretary of the Governing Body of Christ College, O.P. No.5 has filed a suit bearing C.S. (1) No.390 of 2010 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Cuttack. In the interim application filed by O.P.5 in the said C.S. (1) No.390 of 2010, which has been registered as I.A. No.284 of 2010, the learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 5.5.2010 passed an order of status quo and thereafter on 22.3.2011 disposed of the Interim Application with a direction that O.P.5 would continue as Secretary of the Governing Body of the Christ College, Cuttack till a new Secretary is nominated by Cuttack Christian Education Board (CCEB) in its general body meeting. A counter affidavit has already been filed by O.P.5 in this writ petition, wherein O.P.5 has annexed the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Cuttack in I.A. No.284 of 2010 arising out of C.S. (1) No.390 of 2010. It would be proper to quote herein below the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge in I.A. No.284 of 2010. “ORDER The Interim Application is allowed on contest against the opp. parties without any cost. It is hereby directed that, the petitioner is to continue as Secretary of the Governing Body of the Christ College, Cuttack, till a new Secretary is nominated by CCEB in its General Body Meeting, as per the constitution and Rules of Business of the Governing Body of the Christ College, Cuttack.” Mr. J. Patnaik, for O.P.5 submitted that the aforesaid aspect was never brought to the notice of this Court, while the ex parte order of injunction, which is sought to be vacated, was passed on 24.3.2011. According to him, not a whisper in the writ application has been made about the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in the civil suit in which the present petitioner is a party. Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised various questions on the merits of the case as well as against the continuance of present O.P.5 as the Secretary of the Governing Body of Christ College. Be that as it may, since the counter affidavit has already been filed by O.P.5 the same shall be considered at the time of hearing of the writ application. Admittedly, the petitioner is a party to the Civil Suit. But he has obtained the interim order dated 24.3.2011 from this court without disclosing the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, though the same was within the knowledge of the petitioner. Law is well settled that when a person approaches a Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. (See The Ramjas Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852 ). The principle is, he, who seeks equity, must do equity. (See The Ramjas Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852 ). The principle is, he, who seeks equity, must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. In Tilokchand Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 , State of Haryana Vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 781 and Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999)1 SCC 271 , the apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. In Agriculture & Processed Food Products Vs. Oswal Agro Furane, AIR 1996 SC 1947 , the apex Court had taken a serious objection in a case filed by suppressing the material facts and held that if the petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact, his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”. While deciding the said case, the apex Court had placed reliance upon the judgment of King Vs. General Commissioner, (1717) 1 KB 486, wherein it has been observed as under:- “Where an ex parte application has been made to the Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of its merits....” The aforesaid rule has been evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it. However, the suppressed fact must be material one in the sense that, had it not been suppressed, it would have led any fact on the merit of the case. However, the suppressed fact must be material one in the sense that, had it not been suppressed, it would have led any fact on the merit of the case. In the case at hand, had the petitioner disclosed the fact of pendency of the Civil Suit and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge allowing O.P.5 to continue till a decision is taken by the CCEB, this Court would not have passed the interim order as passed on 24.3.2011 because of the fact that the Civil Court is in seisin of the matter. In our considered opinion, since the petitioner by suppressing the fact of pendency of the Civil Suit and the orders passed therein, in which he himself is a party achieved its goal by obtaining an interim order, i.e. the order of restraint as well as order of interim arrangement, we have no hesitation to hold that the said act of the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of this Court. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the interim orders passed on 24.3.2011 in Misc. Case Nos.4786 of 2011 and 4785 of 2011 and dismiss both the misc. cases. Consequently, we allow the present misc. case, i.e. Misc. Case No.7544 of 2011 filed by opposite parties 4 and 5. In order to curb malady of this type, we impose a cost of Rs.2,50,000/- (rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) on the petitioner, which shall be deposited in this Court within a period of one month from today, failing which Criminal Contempt shall be initiated against the petitioner, for filing false affidavit before this Court and obtaining interim orders by misleading this Court. Order accordingly.