1. ' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- Report and parawise comments have been filed. A rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner.
2. ' It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that qua the same cause of action and controversy, the petitioner filed a civil suit (for declaration and injunction) wherein he had filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction which application was dismissed by the trial Court on 25-5-2006 and appeal thereagainst was also filed on 6-6-2006 before the lower Appellate Court. It is pointed out by the latter that the writ petition which was filed before this Court qua the same controversy on 9-8-2006 does not make mention of the tiling of the suit and passing of the above mentioned orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that when the writ petition was filed by him, he had no instructions as to the pendency of the civil litigation and that the same has been withdrawn now.
3. ' The factum of civil litigation between the same parties qua the same cause of action and controversy pending at the time of filing of this petition on 9-8-2006 was not disclosed and mentioned in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner may not have the knowledge, since according to him he was not instructed about the same, but the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings pending in the Civil Court which were filed by himself. Even withdrawal of those proceedings later on does not absolve the petitioner as when he filed the petition before this Court, he suppressed and concealed the pendency of the same and orders passed by the Courts. The present petition was filed through its Managing Director who should have acted responsibly and disclosed all such essential facts. Unfortunately, of late there is a growing tendency of suppression of material information and facts from the Courts and orders are sought to be procured on the basis of such misrepresentation and concealment. Not only that parallel proceedings before two forums for the same cause of action were unwarranted, the conduct of such a petitioner disentitles him to any relief from the Court. Such a practice need to be curbed, therefore, this Court keeping in view the nature of the jurisdiction available under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which is essentially discretionary and equitable while dismissing a petition, can burden such a petitioner with costs.
4. ' The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs,10,000.