JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J. 1. The petitioners filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which it was prayed that the respondent-Bank be restrained from taking any action with respect to certain properties of the petitioners. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition was that this property had been mortgaged without possession to the private respondent who had misled the Bank into accepting the said document as a security for repayment of loan. 3. On 03-11-2014, we had directed Sri R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners, who had appeared before us to produce a certified copy of the mortgage deed. On the next date, i.e., 10-11-2014 Sri P.K. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, appeared and stated that no mortgage deed had been executed. We had, therefore, directed the petitioner to clarify how they had made an averment in the petition that the land was mortgaged and we had further directed the petitioner to clearly state how and in what manner the mortgage was created. Now an affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that, in fact, no mortgage either oral or written was ever executed. 4. It is further averred that the petitioner had executed a sale deed whereby she had transferred the land. According to the petitioner, she did not receive the entire sale consideration and she has not even parted with the possession of the land and, therefore, she had filed this petition. 5. We fail to understand why these facts were not stated clearly in the writ petition when it was filed. A writ petition is decided only on the basis of affidavits. We expect that parties who come to the Court praying for grant of discretionary relief, come with clean hands, do not withhold any material facts from the Court and do not try to mislead the Court. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this was a surreptitious attempt to hoodwink the Court and obtain a stay order by not stating the correct facts. 6. We, therefore, reject the petition.