ORDER : We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the petitioners; Sri Kapil Sibil, learned senior counsel and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, at length. 2. We have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners herein, who claim to be the agnates of the deceased testator (Sri Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri) have sought to assail the common judgment of the Division Bench in FAO(OS) No.347/2012 & CM APPL. Nos.15602/2013, 20920/2022, 47492/2022; FAO(OS) No. 348/2012, CM APP. Nos.46546-47/2022 & 3579/2023; and FAO(OS) No.211/2013. 4. According to the petitioners, they are the agnates of the deceased – testator and have the right to assail the grant of probate to the legatees of the testator under the Will dated 30.10.1985. When queried by this Court to explain about the locus standi to do so, learned senior counsel, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, drew our attention to the impugned judgment of the Division Bench as well as the order of the learned Single Judge to contend that as agnates they were entitled to a citation under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, “IS Act”) as they had filed caveat under Section 284 of the IS Act. As a result, the application for seeking grant of probate was converted into a testamentary suit. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the said suit and the petitioners herein, being the agnates of the testator had the right to succeed to the estate of the deceased testator. In the circumstances, the withdrawal of their objections to the grant of probate is wholly academic inasmuch as the learned Single Judge had declined to grant probate of the Will. Therefore, the petitioners herein were entitled to succeed to the estate of the testator under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act”). Learned senior counsel further emphasised that owing to the aforesaid reason, the withdrawal of the suit being Civil Case No. 1 of 2005 which was pending on the file of the Court Additional Civil Judge (A.B.) Serial No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) would also pale into insignificance. This is because the right of the petitioners/agnates had surfaced once the learned Single Judge had declined to grant probate to the respondent’s legatees. 5. This is because the right of the petitioners/agnates had surfaced once the learned Single Judge had declined to grant probate to the respondent’s legatees. 5. In this regard, Ms. Arora submitted that the High Court was not right in declining to grant an opportunity to the petitioners herein to participate in the appellate proceedings before the Division Bench. Therefore, she submitted that the petitioners have every locus standi to challenge the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in this Special Leave Petition. 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents have made a twofold submission: firstly, they contended that the petitioners herein have abandoned their claim to challenge the validity of the Will because they withdrew their objections to do so in the probate proceeding before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge declining to grant probate of the Will to the respondents herein did not have any bearing on the rights of the petitioners herein. Secondly, and more importantly, they contended that the petitioners herein in their petition filed under Article 136 of Constitution of India have suppressed before this Court, the fact that they had filed Civil Case No.1 of 2005, precisely for the very reasons for which they had objected to the grant of probate, namely, challenging the validity of the Will. The said suit was withdrawn by filing a formal application under Order XXIII Rule I of the CPC. By order dated 07.07.2010, the application filed by these petitioners along with other plaintiffs in the suit was allowed and the suit was permitted to be withdrawn without any liberty as such. Consequently, the principles enunciated in Order XXIII Rule 4 would apply by way of analogy in the instant case. 7. It was further submitted that the petitioners herein have conspicuously suppressed the said withdrawal of the suit in the Special Leave Petition. That the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution being discretionary in nature, this Court may dismiss this Special Leave Petition solely on the ground of suppression without considering any further argument in the matter. 8. We have narrated at length the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the respective parties. It is unnecessary to reiterate the same. 9. 8. We have narrated at length the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the respective parties. It is unnecessary to reiterate the same. 9. We find that firstly, there is a total suppression of the fact that the Civil Case No.1 of 2005 filed, inter alia, by the petitioners herein was withdrawn by filing an application under Order XXIII Rule I of the CPC. The said withdrawal was sought without seeking any liberty in the matter. The said suit was with regard to a challenge to the validity of the very same Will which is under question in the instant case. The suppression of an important material fact before this Court is a fact which would dissuade this Court from exercising its discretion to consider the matter any further under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to observe that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 being discretionary in nature, any suppression by a party approaching this Court for seeking relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is a grave and serious reason for declining to exercise jurisdiction in the matter. Hence, on that short ground alone, the Special Leave Petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. Secondly, and more importantly, the impact of the withdrawal of the objections with regard to the grant of probate before the learned Single Judge by these very petitioners as well as the withdrawal of the suit being Civil Case No.1 of 2005 would imply that they have no objection whatsoever for the grant of probate of the Will to the respondent- legatees. 10. In the circumstances, when the Division Bench of the High Court has granted probate to the respondents herein, at this stage, the petitioners, who claim to be agnates of the deceased testator, cannot approach this Court to assail the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. They have no locus standi to do so as the petitioners cannot blow hot and cold at the same time in the very same proceeding as they are estopped from doing so. 11. For that reason also, we dismiss the Special Leave Petition on the ground of locus standi also. 12. They have no locus standi to do so as the petitioners cannot blow hot and cold at the same time in the very same proceeding as they are estopped from doing so. 11. For that reason also, we dismiss the Special Leave Petition on the ground of locus standi also. 12. The suppression of the fact that they had withdrawn the Civil Case No.1 of 2005 before the Court of Additional Civil Judge before this Court being a very serious and grave issue, we find that it is appropriate to impose costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- each on the petitioners herein. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from today with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. The Registry to ensure that the said costs are deposited by the petitioners before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre within the aforesaid time frame. 13. In the result, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of locus standi as well as on the ground of suppression of material facts. Consequently, permission to file Special Leave Petition is rejected. 14. In view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, all consequential steps with regard to the grant of probate by the High Court shall take place in accordance with law. All other pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.