' Briefy, the facts of case are that the petitioner participated in auction held by the respondents, the bid of petitioner was highest which was accepted by the respondents and following plots were leased out by the respondents to the petitioner for three years:- ' Plot B total area measuring 20-28 acres ' Plot C total area measuring 20-65 acres ' Plot E total area measuring 19 acres ' the lease agreement was executed between the parties according to which lease was commenced from 21-1-1996 for three years till 21-1-1999 according to the terms of agreement and lease deed the same is extendable. Subsequent to the execution of lease document the petitioner was to be in possession of 38 acres of land and 96 acres which was to end in October, 1999.
According to the terms of lease the same is further extendable for another period of three years.
The respondents without any justification threatening the petitioner to vacate the land in question and hand over the possession to petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
The writ petition was fixed on 21-5-1999, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The respondents filed report and parawise comments which reveals that the petitioner had already tiled civil suit qua the same subject-matter, cause of action and relief before the learned Civil Judge Kasur. This fact is borne out from the order of this Court dated 28-6-1999.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner by mistake did not mention that petitioner had already filed civil suit before the Civil Judge Kasur; that this is a bona fide mistake committed by the petitioner and the writ petition is to be decided on its own merit. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: ' (PLD 1969 Lah. 175) Khan Abdul Ghafoor Khan Daha's case.
' (PLD 1997 Lah. 664) Muhammad Yaqoob and 13 others' case.
' (PLD 1962 Lah. 151) Mst. Sattan and others' case.
3. The learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner filed civil suit qua the same subject- matter, cause of action and relief before the learned Civil Judge, Kasur on 18-2-1999 and also obtained status quo order from the Civil Court. Subsequently, without mentioning this facts filed this present writ petition on 21-5-1999 and secured status quo order from this Court thereafter the petitioner had withdrawn his suit on 26-5-1999; that writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record the judgments cited by the learned counsel for petitioner are distinguished on facts and law and are not in accordance with law as the law laid down in Ch. Tanbir Ahmed Siddiqui's case (PLD 1968 SC 185) and laid down the following principle:- "It further appears that regular suit filed by the appellant to establish the nature of the property, is also pending in the Civil Court. That by itself would be sufficient ground for denying any relief in writ jurisdiction to the appellant in this case."
' It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must come to the Court with I clean hands.
The petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the law laid down in Abdul Rashid's case (1969 SCMR 141) and Ghulam Mustafa's case (1983 SCMR 196).
' In view of what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of petitioner as the law laid down in Nawabzada Raunaq Ali Khan's case (PLD 1973 SC 236) and Rana Muhammad Arshad's case (1998 SCMR 1462), the writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no orders as to costs.