Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88525 Court No. - 49 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 357 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Srivastava,Bhawesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Jay Prakash Singh,Azad Rai,C.S.C.,Suhel Ahmad Azmi Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. Heard Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Bhawesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Suhel Ahmad Azmi, learned Counsel for respondent no. 5 and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 5 and 6. It is, in fact, a supplementary counter affidavit, where along with the affidavit, a certified copy of the plaint, giving rise to O.S. No. 1112 of 2002, Salikram vs. Chandra Pratap Singh, has been annexed. Salikram, the petitioner's father, who is now no more and the petitioner Vijay Pratap Singh has been substituted as plaintiff no. 1/1 in place of Salikram in the suit last mentioned. The defendant to the suit is Chandra Pratap Singh, who is respondent no. 5 Vijay Bhan Singh's father. He too is no more and his heirs have been substituted. The relief claimed in the plaint, giving rise to the suit, is to the effect (rendered from Hindi into English) that by a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction the defendant, his family members and representatives be restrained from interfering in the right of the plaintiff and the other residents of the village in general from using the chakroad located in plot no. 153 and shown in the plaint map by letters अ, ब, स, और द and further not to interfere with the passage of the plaintiff and the others, in any manner, or cause obstruction in the use of the said chakroad; and further, the defendant may not raise constructions over the suit property or alter its nature and character. In the present public interest litigation, the petitioner, concealing the factum of pendency of the said suit virtually for the same relief, has prayed for a mandamus to ensure removal of encroachment from Gata No. 143/0.04 hectare situate in village Kamalpur, Pargana Jhunsi, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj said to be recorded as a chakmarg in the revenue record by issuing a direction to the official respondents to institute proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The suppression of aforesaid fact is indeed material and amounts to suppressio veri. It was the most material fact to disclose. The relief that has been sought in the suit is the same. A reading of the relief sought in the suit would make us think that it is a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C or class action as called in some foreign jurisdiction. However, the plaint does not show it to be a suit under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. Be that as it may, the petitioner instituted the present public interest litigation clearly mala fide grossly suppressing the most material fact, which he ought have disclosed, that is to say, the pendency of an earlier suit brought by his father against the fifth respondent's father relating to same subject matter and involving the same cause of action. In the result, we do not find this public interest litigation fit to be entertained or heard any further. It is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Deepak Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad