JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. 1. Heard Mr. RC Sancheti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Mozumder, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 2. This is an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for granting temporary injunction. The petitioner as the plaintiff filed a suit against the present respondents for declaration and injunction. Along with the said suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was also filed thereby praying for grant of temporary injunction, which was numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 383/2016 arising out of Title Suit No. 261/2016. In the said petition, the present petitioner prayed for restraining the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from paying the entire bond amount on its maturity to the present respondent No. 5. However, the said petition for temporary injunction was rejected vide order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, No. 3, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred under Order 43, Rule 1R and along with the said appeal, this present petition under Order 39 and Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has been preferred with a prayer similar to the one made in Misc.(J) Case No. 383/2016. 3. This Court vide order dated 23.09.2016 in the ad-interim order directed the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 restraining from releasing any amount in excess of 50% of the total sum due under the 500 number of bonds described in the schedule of the petition. The respondent No. 5 entered appearance, who is incidentally the son of Paras Nath Yadav, who as per the submission of the present petitioner by way of a WILL bequeathed amongst other the said bonds issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. 4. The respondent No. 5 through his affidavit-in-opposition, disputed the claim of the present petitioner and further it was brought to the notice of this Court that his father Paras Nath Yadav did not execute any will in respect of his property, both movable and immovable in favour of the present petitioner. 4. The respondent No. 5 through his affidavit-in-opposition, disputed the claim of the present petitioner and further it was brought to the notice of this Court that his father Paras Nath Yadav did not execute any will in respect of his property, both movable and immovable in favour of the present petitioner. The alleged will dated 31.08.2014 purportedly shown to be registered on 03.03.2015 is a fraudulent one, which is under challenge in a suit bearing Case No. 1047/2015 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (CD), Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh filed by the mother of the respondent No. 5. The said suit is filed against the present petitioner. The learned Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 26.09.2015 directed to maintain status-quo in respect of ? (one third) schedule property and the said order has been extended till date. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the present petitioner had also instituted another suit pertaining to the said will bearing Case No. 854/2015 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (CD), Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh against his sister, Durgawati Devi, who is claimed to be the 2nd wife of Late Paras Nath Yadav. By way of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the said respondent No. 5 prays for dismissal of the present petition. 6. Mr. Sancheti submits that as per the will he is entitled to the bond issued by the respondent No. 1. The said bond was initially purchased by Late Paras Nath Yadav, who is the 1st holder of the said bond certificate and the 2nd holder is the respondent No. 5, who on the death of Late Paras Nath Yadav requested the respondent No. 5 to issue fresh bond by deleting the name of Late Paras Nath Yadav on his death. 7. It is also submitted that as per the Information Memorandum issued against the said bond that on the death of the 1st holder of the bond held jointly by two persons, a 3rd person may call on the company to register his name as successor of the deceased bond holder only on production of probate or letter of administration or succession certificate, etc. from the competent Court. 8. Mr. from the competent Court. 8. Mr. Sancheti submits that the present petitioner filed a Probate Case No. 23/2016 in the Court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and the same is pending for disposal and the said probate case is with respect to the last will of Late Paras Nath Yadav. In such a situation, wherein the right of the petitioner is subjudiced if the respondent No. 5 is allowed to withdraw/interfere the said bond, irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner and further it is submitted that it will be practically impossible for the petitioner to recover the amount which would led to multiplicity of the suit and legal proceeding. 9. Considering the same, the petitioner preferred the Title Suit along with the said application under Order 31, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court. In such a situation, Mr. Sancheti submits that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the present petitioner to go for trial and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner in granting the injunction so prayed for. 10. Mr. Mozumder, the learned Senior Counsel objects the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petitioner has suppressed the material facts, which are relevant in deciding the Title Suit and also the probate proceeding, inasmuch as, nowhere in the plaint nor in the injunction petition, the petitioner pleaded about the pendency of the various suits wherein the petitioner himself is a party. In such a situation, the principle of equity under no circumstances would tilt the balance of convenience in favour of the present petitioner in so far as the question of granting temporary injunction is concerned. It is also submitted that the present petitioner is not clothed with any right to seek for an order of temporary injunction, inasmuch as, his only claim is on the basis of the will so far the property both movable and immovable of Late Paras Nath Yadav are concerned. 11. Referring to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Mr. Mozumder submits that no right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed. 11. Referring to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Mr. Mozumder submits that no right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed. In other words to buttress the said submission, Mr. Mozumder relies on the judgment of Hem Nolini Judah v. Isolyne Sarojbashinin Bose, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1471 and submits that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 creates a bar to the establishment of any right under will by an executor or a legatee unless probate of the will is obtained. It is immaterial whether the right under the will is claimed as a plaintiff or as a defendant. In either case, Section 213 will be a bar to any right claimed by a person under a will. 12. With regard to the act of suppression of material fact, Mr. Mozumder relies on the judgment of Amar Singh v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2011) 7 SCC 69 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 53 and 54 has held as follows:- "53. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with "unclean hands" and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case. 54. In Dalglish v. Jarvie, the Court, speaking through Lord Langdale and Rolfe B., laid down: "It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction; and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring forward." 13. So, the petitioner in fact has no prima facie case at all to go for trial, inasmuch as, no right has accrued on the said petitioner at least to file a suit for declaration of the said right which has not yet accrued and as such, this petition is fit to be dismissed. 14. Considered the submission of both the learned counsels. 15. 14. Considered the submission of both the learned counsels. 15. The case of the petitioner is that a will was executed by Late Paras Nath Yadav, the father of the respondent No. 5 and on the basis of the said will purportedly the movable and immovable properties were bequeathed to the present petitioner and with respect to the said will there is a suit pending which has been filed by none other than the mother of the respondent No. 5. In such a situation, challenge of the will is very much relevant in disposing of the present petition and also in the pending Title Suit. But those facts were suppressed and the petitioner has come up with this petition before this Court after the same was rejected by the Trial Court. The very fact of pendency of the Title Suit challenging the will and the suppression of the said fact from the notice of the Court amounts to a disqualification on the part of the petitioner if scanned keeping in view the principles of equity. In addition to that Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is very mush specific that until and unless a will is probated by a competent Court, it has got no value at all nor the executor is entitled to claim any right flowing out of that will with respect to any property. Relief so prayed in this petition are in the nature of mandatory injunction and in order to grant mandatory injunction, the nature of the prima facie case for granting such interim mandatory injunction must be much more stronger than what is required for grating a simple prohibitory injunction. 16. Considering the facts and the submission of both the parties, this Court finds that there is no strong prima facie case to grant interim mandatory temporary injunction. Coupled with the said act of suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner, this Court do not find the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the petitioner and as such, finally this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs prayed in this petition. 17. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and the ad-interim order passed earlier stands vacated.