JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Sri Ganganagar whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. was rejected. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 373(1 )(b) of the Indian Succession Act in the Trial Court for being granted a succession certificate. The defendants-respondents herein appeared in the proceedings and filed an objection against the grant of succession certificate. A counter claim was also filed by the non-applicant Aadesh Kumar. 4. Vide order dated 17.9.1998 (Annex.-4), the Trial Court directed the suit to be tried as a regular suit. Issues were framed vide order dated 23.1.1999. The petitioner filed an application under Order 14, Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. for amendment in the issues. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 23.1.2002 (Annex.-7). The petitioner has now assailed the said order Annex.4 dated 17.9.1998 and the order Annex.-7 dated 23.1.2002 by way of this writ petition after more than a decade. 5. Mr, Maheshwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the order impugned are absolutely illegal and suffer from, manifest perversity. As per him, the issues No. 3 and 4 framed by the Trial Court do not require any adjudication because the issues are totally irrelevant for resolving the dispute between the parties. Thus, he prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed. In the relief clause of the writ petition, it has been prayed that the orders dated 17.9.1998 (Annex.-4) and 23.1.2002 (Annex.-7) passed by the Trial Court should be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 (2) C.P.C. may be allowed. 6. Per Contra, Mr. Goyal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, vehemently contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner apart from being filed on absolutely frivolous grounds, is also highly belated as the order Annex.-4 passed way back in the year 1998 has been assailed by way of this writ petition after nearly fifteen years. 6. Per Contra, Mr. Goyal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, vehemently contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner apart from being filed on absolutely frivolous grounds, is also highly belated as the order Annex.-4 passed way back in the year 1998 has been assailed by way of this writ petition after nearly fifteen years. He submitted that no explanation has been given in the writ petition for the gross and undue delay and thus, the writ petition be dismissed with heavy costs. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned orders. 8. The orders which have been impugned in the writ petition are Annex.-4 and Annex.-7. The order Annex.4 dated 17.9.1998 was passed rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. for recalling an earlier order dated 4.2.1997. The order dated 4.2.1997 has not been filed on record. On going through the order Annex.-4, it is revealed that the order dated 4.2.1997 was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision before this Court and this Court rejected the revision on 13.7.1998. The second order which is assailed in this petition is order Annex.-7 dated 23.1.2002. The learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to demonstrate before this Court as to what prevented the petitioner from assailing the said order at the earliest point of time. It is also significant to note here that the petitioner while impugning the order dated 17.9.1998 in this writ petition conveniently omitted to mention the fact that the order dated 4.2.1997 for the recalling whereof the said application under Section 151 C.P.C. was filed, was itself assailed in revision before this Court and was affirmed. The order also mentions that upon being warned about the rejection of the revision, the petitioner's Counsel in the Trial Court gave a statement that the application has become infructuous. Yet audaciously, that very order has been assailed in this writ petition and that too after fifteen years. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and the writ petition has been filed with blatant concealment of fact. This apparently is nothing but an attempt to play fraud with the Court. In this view of the matter, a party who approaches the Court by concealing material facts, does not deserve any relief. This apparently is nothing but an attempt to play fraud with the Court. In this view of the matter, a party who approaches the Court by concealing material facts, does not deserve any relief. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is without any merit and deserves to be rejected with costs. 9. Resultantly, this' writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner shall now be permitted to prosecute the proceeding before the Trial Court only on the deposition of the cost of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of two months from today with the District Legal Services Authority.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******