JUDGMENT : KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for following reliefs:- “1. Issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no, 2 and 3 to decide the application dated 01.05.2019 in which it has been made clear that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned as a legal heir in records of the office of respondents along with the name of elder brother pending before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and it is further prayed to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to add the name of the petitioner along with his brother named Pankaj Jain in the allottees of the Bunglow no. 1 river bank colony, Lucknow, U.P. after verifying the correctness of the legal heirs of the Late J.M. Jain I.P.S. (Original allottee of the bunglow no. 1 river bank colony). 2. Any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. Award the cost of petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 has submitted that in respect of identical circumstances, an original civil suit, bearing No. 2344 of 2018, has been filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), North, Lucknow, in which written statement has been filed by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation, wherein it has been categorically stated that father of the present writ petitioner, during his life time, has got mutated the name of his elder brother, namely, Pankaj Jain and his daughter, namely, Madhu Jain in respect of the house in question. It is this action, which is impugned in the aforesaid civil suit. He has submitted that the aforesaid fact has been suppressed by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no knowledge about the aforesaid facts nor his client (petitioner) has stated him about the aforesaid facts. 5. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no knowledge about the aforesaid facts nor his client (petitioner) has stated him about the aforesaid facts. 5. We have perused the averments made in the writ petition and find that the petitioner in para-1 of the writ petition has stated that no suit is pending before this Hon'ble Court or before any bench or any other court of law for the same cause of action or relief. Para-1 of the writ petition reads as under:- “1. That this is the first petition filed by the petitioner for the issuance of Mandamus to direct the respondents to decide the application dated 01.05.2019 to add the name of the petitioner in the allottees of the bunglow no. 1 river bank side, in which only the name of the his elder brother Pankaj Jain I.A.S. is added, no other petition or application or suit is pending before this Hon'ble Court or before any bench or any other court of law for the same cause of action or relief.” 6. Considering the aforesaid so also gone through the copy of the suit and written statement produced before us for perusal of the Court by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, we are of the view that the issue involved in the present writ petition is identical to civil suit no. 2344 of 2018, which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), North, Lucknow. This, therefore, is deliberate suppression of the material facts. 7. When a person approaches a Court of equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. The Ramjas Foundation and Others vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1993 SC 852 , K.P. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 620 . Thus, who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem” means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. 8. In Nooruddin vs. Dr. Thus, who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem” means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. 8. In Nooruddin vs. Dr. K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “..............Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice.” 9. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs. K. Parasaran and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2687 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.” 10. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi and Others, (1998) 3 SCC 573 . 11. In Tilokchand Motichand vs. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 , State of Haryana vs. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781 and Sabia Khan and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 271 , the Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 12. In Agriculture and Process Food Products vs. Oswal Agro Furane, AIR 1996 SC 1947 , the Apex Court had taken a serious objection in a case filed by suppressing the material facts and held that if a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact and his case cannot be considered on merits. 12. In Agriculture and Process Food Products vs. Oswal Agro Furane, AIR 1996 SC 1947 , the Apex Court had taken a serious objection in a case filed by suppressing the material facts and held that if a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact and his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts.” While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance upon the judgment in King vs. General Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486, wherein it has been observed as under:- “Where an ex-parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of its merits.......” 13. In Abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai and Another, 2003 AIR SCW 14 and S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 166 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse relief to the party. This rule has been evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it. However, the suppressed fact must be material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have led any fact on the on the merit of the case. Principle enshrined in Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure should be applied in such a case as the said provisions provide for compensatory costs in respect of fake or vexatious claim or defence in addition to criminal liability in respect of such a false claim or defence. This principle can also be made applicable in case of suppression of facts. 14. This principle can also be made applicable in case of suppression of facts. 14. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naraindas vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1252 has held as under:- “Now there can be no doubt that if a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and wilfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order, it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding, and thus, amount to contempt of court.” 15. In The Advocate General, State of Bihar vs. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another, AIR 1980 SC 946 , the Apex Court held that every abuse of the process of the Court does not necessarily amount to contempt of Court, but a calculated attempt to hamper the due course of the judicial proceeding or administration of justice shall definitely amount to contempt of the Court, and in such a case, punishment to the contemnor is necessary to prevent the abuse and making a mockery of the judicial process, as it adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The Court further held as under:- “The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice, and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court, not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression "Contempt of Court" may seem to suggest, but, to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.” 16. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner by suppressing the fact of pendency of a suit on the identical issue with oblique motive. The present petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs. 17. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed for suppressing the material fact with cost of Rs. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner by suppressing the fact of pendency of a suit on the identical issue with oblique motive. The present petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs. 17. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed for suppressing the material fact with cost of Rs. 1000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the registry of this Court within fifteen days from today, failing which, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall proceed in accordance with law for recovery of the said cost from the petitioner. 18. On receipt of the aforesaid cost, the Registry shall transmit the same in the account of the Awadh Bar Association for purchase of books of its Library.