JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Heeralal Sindhi, the petitioner, is present before this Court as the learned members of the Bar are abstaining from work today. 2. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 9.10.2013 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed his Temporary Injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. He has also challenged the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned judge has confirmed the order dated 9.10.2013, and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Mr. Heeralal Sindhi has vehemently contended that there is in fact a lane between his house and the house of Smt. Pushpa Devi, respondent No.1. Since Smt. Pushpa Devi is preventing him from using the lane, therefore, he had filed the civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. However, without comprehending the factual situation, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the Temporary Injunction application. Therefore, the order dated 9.10.2013 needs to be interfered with. Secondly, that the learned judge has not given any cogent reason for upholding the order dated 9.10.2013. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.12.2013 deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand Mr. Naveen Pareek, son of respondent No.1, has pleaded that since the petitioner had hidden certain cardinal facts, such as the fact that an appeal had been filed before this Court, and this Court had passed an order dated 4.8.2005, therefore, the petitioner had not approached the civil court with clean hands. It is for this particular reason that the learned Magistrate had dismissed the Temporary Injunction application. It is precisely for this reason that even the learned judge had upheld the order dated 9.10.2013. Therefore, Mr. Naveen Pareek has supported the impugned orders. 5. Heard the parties in person, and perused the impugned orders. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that every litigant is legally duty bound to approach the court with clean hands. A person who hides cardinal facts is guilty of intentionally misleading the court. The court can never rush to the rescue of such a person. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has noted the fact that the petitioner had hidden the fact that an appeal had been filed before this Court, and this Court had passed certain judgment on 4.8.2005. A person who hides cardinal facts is guilty of intentionally misleading the court. The court can never rush to the rescue of such a person. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has noted the fact that the petitioner had hidden the fact that an appeal had been filed before this Court, and this Court had passed certain judgment on 4.8.2005. Since the petitioner did not approach the Magisterial court with clean hands, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in dismissing his application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Even the learned judge has noticed the fact that the petitioner did not come before the court with clean hands. 7. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 9.10.2013 and 17.12.2013. This petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay application, too, stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******