JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant writ petition was filed with a prayer for issuing direction to the learned court below to expedite the hearing of the Regular Suit No.1069 of 2013, Ankur Tripathi Vs. Rashmi Tripathi, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. Looking into the innocuous nature of prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also keeping in view the mandate of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the learned court? below to expedite the proceedings of the aforesaid case and conclude the same within a period of six months. 4. An application has been moved by Rashmi Tripathi, who is defendant in the proceedings before the court below, stating therein that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. 687 (MS) of 2014 with the same prayer which was dismissed and at the time of argument in the present writ petition, the aforesaid fact of filing and dismissal of the writ petition was not brought to the notice of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, states that in para-1 of the writ petition, a declaration has been made by the petitioner that this is the second writ petition on the same subject matter and cause of action which is involved in the instant writ petition. 6. However, petitioner has not made any disclosure about the earlier writ petition, he has not disclosed even the number of the writ petition and result thereof. The fact is that earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 687 (MS) of 2014, where the petitioner had sought the prayer akin to the prayer made in this writ petition, was dismissed. 7. Non-disclosure of the number of the earlier writ petition and the result thereof has to be viewed seriously. Rules of the Court specifically require to disclose such information which enables the Court to form opinion as to whether subsequent writ petition filed should be proceeded with or not. 8. 7. Non-disclosure of the number of the earlier writ petition and the result thereof has to be viewed seriously. Rules of the Court specifically require to disclose such information which enables the Court to form opinion as to whether subsequent writ petition filed should be proceeded with or not. 8. On being confronted with the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of preparation of the writ petition, he did not have the copy of the order passed in the earlier writ petition and its number. However, he states and admits that while settling the pleadings of the writ petition, he should have been more cautious. 9. The Court is pained to note the manner in which disclosure of the fact of filing of the earlier writ petition has been made in para-1 of the writ petition. A statement has been made that this is second writ petition. Para-1 of the writ petition is extracted hereinbelow: - "1. That the petitioner declares that this is the second writ petition of the petitioner at Lucknow Bench of this Hon'ble Court for the subject matter and cause of action involved in the instant writ petition. The petitioner further declares that he has not received any notice, information or copy of any caveat application by registered post or otherwise from any of the opposite parties or from any other sources." 10. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, which requires the statement to be in the writ petition, runs as follows: - "[(3)(i)The petitioner(s) shall categorically state in the opening paragraph of their Application,Affidavit, Petition, etc. that no Writ Petition,Application, including review Application, etc.or any other proceedings arising from or related to the impugned order or the relief sought before this Court has been filed or is pending to the best of his knowledge before this Court,at Allahabad or Lucknow or any other Court/Authority,Tribunal,etc. (ii) If there is any related proceeding pending elsewhere, the full details thereof shall be mentioned. (iii) In continuation, in a subsequent paragraph a categorical statement shall be made by the petitioner(s), Applicant(s) etc. to indicate whether Petitioner(s), Applicant(s) etc. 'have received or not received' notice, information or copy of any caveat application by Registered Post or otherwise from any of the opposite parties or from any other source. (iii) In continuation, in a subsequent paragraph a categorical statement shall be made by the petitioner(s), Applicant(s) etc. to indicate whether Petitioner(s), Applicant(s) etc. 'have received or not received' notice, information or copy of any caveat application by Registered Post or otherwise from any of the opposite parties or from any other source. (vi) Any substantial omission or misstatement in the above regard shall render the application liable to be dismissed summarily]". 11. A perusal of the aforequoted provision reveals that if there is any related proceeding pending elsewhere, the full details thereof are to be mentioned. The said provision also provides that the disclosure is to be made as to whether any other proceedings arising? from or related to the relief sought has been filed or is pending. Sub-rule? (3) (iv) of? Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court states that any substantial omission or misstatement? in the above regard shall render the petition liable to be dismissed summarily. 12. The purpose of engrafting such a rule in the Rules of the Court is related to the public policy of checking plurality of the proceedings in respect of the same subject matter and cause of action. Consequence of substantial omission or misstatement is summary dismissal of writ petition being filed before this Court. 13. In this case, the details of earlier proceedings, namely, proceedings of Writ Petition No. 687 (MS) of 2014 are missing which, in my opinion, amounts to substantial omission. The manner in which the paragraph-1 of the writ petition is worded also amounts to misstatement. 14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner tenders his unconditional apology and also tenders the apology of the petitioner.? An affidavit of apology has been furnished by the petitioner, who is present in Court today. 15. Looking into the purport of the order dated 11.11.2014 and also taking into account the provisions contained in Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, though, I do not find it case fit for setting aside the said order and considering the matter a fresh, however, for the reasons disclosed in the preceding paragraphs of this order, the petitioner is cautioned that he will be more cautious in future while approaching any court of law. 16. The apology tendered by the petitioner is accepted. 17. With the aforesaid observations,the application stands disposed of.