JUDGMENT (Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Ms. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Naram Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/writ petitioners and Mr. P.Subash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. While granting leave to prefer appeal against the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20639 of 2020, we had passed the following order dated 22.06.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021: “Heard Ms. V. Dyumani, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant. Also heard Mr. Naram Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/writ petitioners. This application is filed for grant of leave to prefer appeal against the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20639 of 2020. It is contended by Ms. V. Dyumani that in respect of the subject matter in the writ petition, the applicant-appellant had filed a suit, being O.S.No.89 of 2018, in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, and in I.A.No.220 of 2018 filed in the said suit, an injunction order was passed restraining the writ petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from alienating the suit property and the said injunction was extended subsequently. It is contended by her that suppressing the above facts, the writ petition was filed and on the basis of the submissions advanced by the writ petitioners, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Sub-Registrar (respondent No.5 herein) to receive the sale deed submitted by the first writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) for the purpose of registration. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that a case is made out to grant leave to prefer the appeal. Accordingly, this application is allowed and disposed of. Registry will list the appeal along with other I.As. after ten days for motion hearing.” 3. Appellant herein had filed a suit against the writ petitioners No.2 and 3, which was registered as O.S.No.89 of 2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal in respect of a plot bearing No.173/MIG-II admeasuring 4 cents 740 sq.links or 229.44 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.2313/C & 2315/1 situated at Nandyal town limits, amongst others, for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the aforesaid property. yards in Sy.Nos.2313/C & 2315/1 situated at Nandyal town limits, amongst others, for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the aforesaid property. The appellant had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, registered as I.A.No.220 of 2018 in O.S.No.89 of 2018, and the learned Court had passed an order of injunction on 20.04.2018 directing the defendants therein (writ petitioners No.2 and 3 in the writ petition) restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property till appearance and filing of counter in that petition. Thereafter, the said interim order was extended from time to time and the last order annexed to the appeal shows that the injunction order was extended till 12.05.2021. It is evident from the affidavit that the defendants therein had filed their written statement on 06.08.2018 and thus have knowledge of the suit. 4. It appears that the writ petitioner No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.734 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal against the defendants of O.S.No.89 of 2018 (i.e., writ petitioners No.2 and 3) in respect of the very same property and a settlement Award was passed on 14.09.2019 in Lok Adalat Case No.837 of 2019. 5. The writ petition was filed by the plaintiff of O.S.No.734 of 2019, as writ petitioner No.1, and defendants in both the suits viz., O.S.No.89 of 2018 and O.S.No.734 of 2019, as writ petitioners No.2 and 3, alleging that though the Lok Adalat passed an award and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are ready and willing to register a sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.1, the Sub-Registrar, Sub Registration Office, Nandyal, Kurnool District refused to receive and register the sale deed without assigning any reasons. 6. Based on the averments made by the writ petitioners, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No.2 therein to receive the sale deed submitted by the petitioner No.1, register and release the same, if the document is in consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It was also observed that if the respondent No.2 refused to register the document, he has to give reasoned endorsement to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. 7. Ms. It was also observed that if the respondent No.2 refused to register the document, he has to give reasoned endorsement to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. 7. Ms. V.Dyumani has submitted that the writ petitioners have suppressed very material facts regarding institution of the suit by the present appellant in the writ petition and they have abused the process of law. Even if some settlement was arrived in Lok Adalat Case No. 837 of 2019 arising out of O.S.No.734 of 2019, which is a collusive suit, having regard to the pendency of the suit filed by the present appellant, wherein, the learned trial court had also granted injunction restraining the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (writ petitioners No.2 and 3) from alienating the property, it was incumbent for them to have mentioned the aforesaid factual matrix in the writ petition, but in order to frustrate the rights of the appellant, recourse was taken to this Court on the basis of such suppression of material facts, as a result of which, the impugned order came to be passed. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners admits that the writ petitioners No.2 and 3 were aware of the suit filed by the appellant as well as the order of injunction that was passed. 9. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and writs are issued for doing substantial justice. A person who invokes the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, has to approach the Writ Court with clean hands and put forth all the facts before the Court without suppressing or concealing any material. He must make candid disclosure of all relevant and material facts. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts, the same results in abuse of process of law, thereby polluting the stream of justice. In that event, the Court may dismiss the petition without entering into the merits of the case. 10. The material on record gives no manner of doubt that the writ petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had suppressed the material facts going to the root of the matter. In that event, the Court may dismiss the petition without entering into the merits of the case. 10. The material on record gives no manner of doubt that the writ petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had suppressed the material facts going to the root of the matter. We will not hazard a guess as to whether the petitioner No.1 was aware of the pendency of the suit filed by the present appellant against the writ petitioners No.2 and 3 as it is not discernable from the material on record, but there is no scintilla of doubt that the writ petitioners No.2 and 3, being aware, had not disclosed such material in the pleadings before this court. 11. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that in view of suppression of material facts, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is interfered with and the writ petition is dismissed. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we impose a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) on the writ petitioners No.2 and 3 to be deposited before the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within a period of one month from today. 13. In view of the above, Writ Appeal stands allowed and disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.