JUDGMENT : N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J. Writ Petition No. 31927 of 2024 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “…declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in non-entertaining the registration process and documentation on the plot of the Petitioner to an extent of 267 Sq.Yards in Plot No.125 in Survey Nos.68, 79 and 80 which is situated at Nadergul Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under the Nadergul Grampanchayath, Ranga Reddy District is illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 of Constitution of India and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to entertain the registration on the plot of the Petitioner to an extent of 267 Sq Yards in Plot No.125 in Survey Nos.68, 79 and 80 which is situated at Nadergul Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject property).” 2. The facts of the case in brief are that petitioner claims to be owner, possessor and enjoyer of open plot (referred as subject property) acquired by way of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.9793 of 1985 dated 02.08.1985.The said document was registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, Champapet, i.e., respondent No.4. It is submitted that some of the real estate brokers approached the petitioner who are all relators, and demanded the petitioner to sell the land for cheaper rate and when such demand was denied, they created a fake death certificate on the petitioner and also created a fake legal heir certificate and created certain false documents. Upon coming to know about the said information, the petitioner approached Police, Meerpet and lodged the complaint against them in Cr.No.493 of 2020 and later were remanded to judicial custody and a charge sheet was registered vide C.C.No.5040 of 2021 which is pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 3. It is the further case of petitioner that some illegal documents were created on the subject property due to which petitioner was constrained to file a suit before the II Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No.505 of 2020 to declare the sale deeds created by the third parties as illegal. Meanwhile, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in I.A.No.66 of 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner, due to his financial requirements, intended to sell the subject property and entered into an agreement of sale with one Ale Ramadevi and received the sale consideration amount from her. Meanwhile, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction in I.A.No.66 of 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner, due to his financial requirements, intended to sell the subject property and entered into an agreement of sale with one Ale Ramadevi and received the sale consideration amount from her. Thereafter, petitioner along with vendee had approached respondent No.4 Office on 10.10.2024 and requested the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed, however, respondent No.4 did not initiate the same for the reason that a suit in O.S.No.505 of 2020 is pending on the file of II Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. It is further submitted that the said suit was filed by the petitioner herein and a copy of injunction order passed by the trial Court was also produced before respondent No.4. However, respondent No.4 denied the registration basing on the injunction order. Questioning the action of respondent No.4, the present writ petition is filed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 i.e., the Sub-Registrar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District stating that on 10.10.2024, the petitioner has approached the office of respondent No.4 and has only taken information regarding registration of the subject property and informed the concerned authorities that injunction order was passed in his favour and the suit is pending for trial. That the petitioner has only filed a protest petition in their office not to entertain registration, as such the subject property was entered into prohibition list under Section 22 (A) of the Registration Act, 1908 .It is further submitted that petitioner has not presented any document executed in favour of his vendee on the said date. It is further submitted that since the document was not executed in favour of the vendee and was not presented before the office of Sub-Registrar, there is no question of rejection of the document and eventually prayed this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 5. It is not out of the place to observe that this Court on many occasions observed that the petitioner in their writ affidavits are stating that the Sub-Registrars are orally refusing to register the documents. It is striking to note that the parties in order to ensure that the document presented for registration shall not be rejected/refused for registration are filing writ petitions without following procedure contemplated in the Registration Act 1908, and are trying to seek orders by misleading the Court. It is striking to note that the parties in order to ensure that the document presented for registration shall not be rejected/refused for registration are filing writ petitions without following procedure contemplated in the Registration Act 1908, and are trying to seek orders by misleading the Court. Many of such instances have come to the notice of this Court. 6. Under those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the order dated 19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli , 1999 (6) ALD 144 . The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:- “8. The well established Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is that the applicant for mandamus must show by evidence, that he made a demand calling upon the concerned authority to perform his public duty and that was met with refusal either bywords or by conduct Applying this salutary rule, the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, thus : "..... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 arc not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P.106): 'As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal". From the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioners could not and did not show that they made a demand to the respondent and that was met with refusal. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioners could not and did not show that they made a demand to the respondent and that was met with refusal. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the declaration sought for or the consequential direction commanding the respondent herein to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their purchasers. This view of mine gains full support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D. Ratnasundari Devi v. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In such an event, I am sure, the respondent will immediately discharge his statutory duties mentioned in Part XI of the Act and consider registerability of the sale deeds. I am also sure that in case the registration is refused, he will certainly record the reasons as enjoined by Section 71 of the Act and furnish a copy thereof, if the petitioners apply for the same.” 7. It is also relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Jayaram and others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others, (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815 the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- “10.It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. 11. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India (supra) has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. 11. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India (supra) has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.” 12. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) this Court has reiterated that the writ remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. Such person should not suppress any material fact but also should not take recourse to legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. 13. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others (supra), it was held thus: “34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J. in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner in the following words: … it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts—it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it—the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) “… 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 an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant’s affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.” 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”. 39. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”. 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.” 8. In the case on hand, the petitioner at paragraph No.8 of the writ affidavit stated the following:- “I submit that I and my vendee both approached respondent No.4 on 10.10.2024 and we requested them to entertain the registration, but he refused, thereafter I requested the respondent No.4 to disclose the reasons for non- entertaining of registration, meanwhile he intimated me that the injunction order is pending in I.A.No.66 of 2020 in O.S.No.505 of 202 on the file of II Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar at Ranga Reddy District, in fact I submitted the cop of injunction order to respondent No.4 and I requested him the said suit was filed by me and I requested him to entertain the registration, but he did not satisfied and refused to entertain the registration, this is also illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Right to Property Act.” 9. It is Pertinent to note that in the present case no refusal order was passed by the respondent No.4 denying registration and infact no draft sale deed has been filed in the material papers. It is Pertinent to note that in the present case no refusal order was passed by the respondent No.4 denying registration and infact no draft sale deed has been filed in the material papers. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who verified the pleadings of writ affidavit, had misrepresented the facts and tried to secure an order. 10. In this connection, it is significant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others , AIR 2010 SC 2221 wherein at para 11 observed as under: “11 . It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 this Court has observed as under : “13. … In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading i.e. a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.” 11. In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any documentary proof in support of their averment that they had executed and presented the sale deed for registration before respondent No.4, and the same was refused for registration. In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any documentary proof in support of their averment that they had executed and presented the sale deed for registration before respondent No.4, and the same was refused for registration. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the statement of the petitioner that he had approached the respondent authority for registration, more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent. 12. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal Vs. State of Punjab , 2003 Supp (1) SCR 242 dated 22.05.2003, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:- “In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.” 13. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any false statement in the petition is abuse of law and serious view has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the petitioner in order to suit his case and to secure an order had made misleading averments. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any false statement in the petition is abuse of law and serious view has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the petitioner in order to suit his case and to secure an order had made misleading averments. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. It is also pertinent to note that, since the suit in O.S.No.505 of 2020 is pending on the file of II Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and the petitioner is pursuing his remedies in the trial Court, at this point of time, the relief sought in the present writ petition cannot be entertained. It is pertinent to note that when the injunction order in I.A.No.65 of 2024 is operating in favour of petitioner, the request for registration is self contradicting, that apart the Sub-Registrar, in his counter, has stated that petitioner has not presented the document. In view of the disputed questions of fact, no mandamus can be issued. The subject property in the present writ petition and in the pending suit in O.S.No.505 of 2020 is one and the same and the petitioner has not made defendant Nos.1 to 3 as parties in the present writ petition. The present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of merits, fails and stands dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall standclosed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.