JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.:- Two orders impugned by the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos.4648 and 6555 of 2010 (Pritpal and another Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others) are common. In addition, the petitioners have sought quashing of warrant of possession issued on 9.6.2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.6555 of 2010. Both these writ petitions are, therefore, being disposed of through this common order. The facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.4648 of 2010. 2. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the partition application filed by respondent No.3. This partition application was moved on 29.8.2005 and the grievance is that the petitioners, who were cultivating the land in place of Shisha Singh, Sharda Singh and Surjit Singh were not impleaded as a party to the partition proceedings. Sharda Singh and Shisha Singh, who were so impleaded, were shown to have been proceeded exparte. In fact, the present petitioners are the purchasers of this land through a sale deed, which was registered on 9.12.2005. Shisha Singh, Sardara Singh and Surjit Singh, who were the co-sharers in the land, sought to be partitioned, had sold this land to the petitioners. The partition proceedings had proceeded on the basis of statement made by the parties. The mode of partition was prepared, to which no objection was filed. The partition proceedings, thus, were completed on 26.6.2006. 3. Joga Singh, who is attorney holder of the petitioners, filed a civil suit, challenging the Sanad Taqseem dated 26.6.2006, alleging it to be null and void. It is averred that the suit as well as appeal filed against the order passed by the Civil Court were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This fact, however, is wrongly stated. In fact, the petitioner had withdrawn the civil suit. The present petitioners then challenged the partition proceedings under the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act by filing a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner on 11.1.2010. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the said revision petition. The petitioners have accordingly filed the present petitions to impugn the order of partition as well as the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 4. The sole ground of challenge is the same that the petitioners had purchased this land in December 2005 but were not impleaded as respondents in the partition proceedings. The petitioners have accordingly filed the present petitions to impugn the order of partition as well as the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 4. The sole ground of challenge is the same that the petitioners had purchased this land in December 2005 but were not impleaded as respondents in the partition proceedings. Instead, Sharda Singh and Shisha Singh, who were impleaded as respondents, were proceeded exparte. It is averred that the fact of partition came to the knowledge of the petitioner in June 2007 and accordingly the petitioners had raised a challenge to the said partition proceedings. As per the petitioners, respondent No.3 has concealed these facts and without impleading the petitioners obtained the order of partition. 5. Notice of motion in this case was issued on 3.2.2010. In April 2010, the petitioner moved a Civil Miscellaneous Application, when warrant of possession was issued and obtained an order, directing the parties to maintain status-quo in regard to possession on 7.4.2010. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned from time to time for all these years. 6. Reply on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 has been filed. In this reply, the said respondents have disclosed the true state of affairs, which would indicate an attempt on the part of the petitioners to mislead and thereby had obtained the orders of statusquo in regard to possession. 7. In the reply, the respondents have pleaded that this writ petition would deserve to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts. It is disclosed that the civil suit was never dismissed for want of jurisdiction but was withdrawn by the petitioners without seeking any permission to either file the writ petition or initiate any other proceedings. The order passed by the Civil Judge is annexed with the reply and would show that the counsel for the petitionerplaintiffs made a statement before the Court that he did not want to proceed further with the present suit and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. The suit was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn on 11.2.2010. This suit had been instituted on 5.6.2007 and was so withdrawn after almost three years. While the suit was pending, the petitioners had taken action to file a petition before the Financial Commissioner. 8. Obviously, the petitioners have chosen this line after having remained unsuccessful in getting relief from the Civil Court. This suit had been instituted on 5.6.2007 and was so withdrawn after almost three years. While the suit was pending, the petitioners had taken action to file a petition before the Financial Commissioner. 8. Obviously, the petitioners have chosen this line after having remained unsuccessful in getting relief from the Civil Court. The petitioners had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the same pleadings as are now raised in the present writ petition. The Civil Court found that there was no prima-facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner-plaintiffs and the suit was filed only to defeat the execution of the partition order, which had become final. Against this order, the petitioners filed an appeal also, which was dismissed on 26.5.2009 and thereafter the petitioners had withdrawn the suit without inviting any order on merits. The petitioners also did not seek any permission either to file a revision before the Financial Commissioner or to file any writ petition to challenge the partition proceedings. The petitioners though had made reference to the interim order passed by the Civil Court, declining his prayer for interim relief, but has not placed on record the order whereby the petitioners had withdrawn the civil suit, which is now disclosed in the reply so filed. 9. It is further disclosed that this partition application was filed on 29.8.2005 i.e. much before the date of sale in favour of the petitioners, which was done on 9.12.2005. On the date of application, the petitioners were not the co-sharers and hence, accordingly could not have been impleaded as a party respondent in the partition proceedings. The co-sharers, who were recorded as such, had been so impleaded. The petitioners concededly came to learn about the final order of partition dated 2.6.2006, against which they filed a civil suit on 5.6.2007. This suit was subsequently withdrawn, when the petitioners could not succeed in getting the interim order. It is thereafter that the Financial Commissioner was approached on 29.6.2009, after delay of nearly 3 years from the date of the impugned order. This revision petition was dismissed on 11.1.2010, whereafter the petitioners had withdrawn the civil suit on 11.2.2010. All these facts have not been disclosed by the petitioners in the present writ petitions. 10. It is thereafter that the Financial Commissioner was approached on 29.6.2009, after delay of nearly 3 years from the date of the impugned order. This revision petition was dismissed on 11.1.2010, whereafter the petitioners had withdrawn the civil suit on 11.2.2010. All these facts have not been disclosed by the petitioners in the present writ petitions. 10. Once the petitioners had invoked the alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to challenge the instrument of partition, they can not be heard in a writ petition once they had not succeeded in the Civil Court and permitted to withdraw the same and invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the same cause after having remained unsuccessful before the Civil Court. The Financial Commissioner justifiably did not interfere in the order so passed and the plea on the ground that the partition order was obtained without impleading the petitioners is apparently misconceived and misleading and was so urged to obtain the orders from the writ Court. On the date the partition application was filed, the petitioners were not even the cosharers. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 can not be faulted in any manner for not impleading the petitioners and rather the petitioners are seen to have misled the Court by stating incorrect and misleading facts. Thus, they would not deserve any relief in equity. Otherwise also, the partition proceedings had been finalised and the final instrument of partition was issued in June 2006 and at this belated stage, when the warrant of possession has also been issued, no case for interference in the partition proceedings is made out. The petitioners otherwise had purchased a share and would get the land which has fallen into the shares of their vendors. There is no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.