JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - Issue notice. Learned counsels appear and accept notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. We have heard learned counsels and proceed to dispose of this special appeal at this stage. 3. The appellant has assailed the order dated 18.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2570 of 2022. The impugned order reads as follows:- 'Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, the learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. Mr. Akshay Joshi, the learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition by suppressing the material facts. Earlier, the petitioner has already approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2022 (M/S) which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench on 20.05.2022 giving direction to the Commissioner Kumaon to decided the petitioner's application within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and in the interim order of status quo qua the construction raised by the petitioner shall be maintained. The writ petition should be dismissed because of the suppression of the material fact. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Bar Association, Nainital within ten days' hence, failing which same shall be recovered as arrear of land revenue.' 4. The appellant earlier preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1085 of 2022 (M/S), which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 20.05.2022. The order passed by the Court was that the representation/ application of the appellant-writ petitioner be decided by the Commissioner, Kumaon. In pursuance of that order, the Commissioner, Kumaon decided the representation/ application made by the appellant, on 08.08.2022,. This order dated 08.08.2022 was put to challenge in the writ petition in question, i.e. Writ Petition (M/S) No.2570 of 2022. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the appellant-writ petitioner has suppressed from the Court the fact that he had earlier preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1085 of 2022 (M/S), which was disposed of on 20.05.2022. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts and imposition of costs on the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsels. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of suppression of material facts and imposition of costs on the appellant. 5. We have heard learned counsels. We have also perused the order dated 08.08.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon, in pursuance of the order dated 20.05.2022, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1085 of 2022. 6. We cannot agree with the finding returned by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the appellant made any suppression of any material fact, while filing the writ petition, which, if disclosed, would have had a bearing on the outcome of the writ petition. 7. The factum of the appellant having preferred an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 20.05.2022 with the direction to the Commissioner, Kumaon, to decide the appellant's representation/ application, was itself noticed in the order dated 08.08.2022, impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, a perusal of the impugned order dated 08.08.2022, in respect whereof, writ petition was preferred, would have disclosed to the Court that the appellant had preferred an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 20.05.2022 with a direction to the Commissioner, Kumaon to decide the appellant's representation/ application. 8. The aspect of suppression of facts becomes relevant, if, firstly, those facts are material to determine the lis between the parties, and suppression or misstatement of those facts would have a bearing on the ultimate result of the lis. 9. In the present case, neither of these aspects are present. Firstly, there is factually no suppression by the appellant. Secondly, filing and disposal of the earlier writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Kumaon to decide the appellant's representation/ application, on the basis of which, the impugned order came to be passed, is not a material fact. Thirdly non-disclosure of the earlier proceedings expressly in the writ petition, had no bearing on the decision in the writ petition, since the fact allegedly not disclosed was history, and it was the order dated 08.08.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon, which was put under challenge. 10. We, therefore, allow the present special appeal, and set-aside the impugned order, and remand back the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for hearing on its merits. The writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge on 15.02.2023. 11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.