JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 05.04.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge Manali in CMA No.37 of 2024 in CS No.199/2023, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by present petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended thereto. 3. The plaint filed by respondent No.1 (Civil Suit No.199/2023) is appended along with the present petition as Annexure P-1. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the suit filed by respondent No.1 seeking declaration, consequential relief of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction has been preferred with respect to three khasra numbers i.e. Khasra Nos.1326, 1327 and 1328 situated in Mohal Simsa, Phati Nasogi, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. These lands are depicted in the revenue record in the ownership of the State and in the possession of "Mukhtalif Kabijaan Najayat". Further in the plaint it has been alleged that the present petitioner has inimical relations with the respondent No.1/plaintiff, due to which at the instigation of one of the petitioner’s relative, who is posted as a senior bureaucrat, a false and frivolous complaint was got lodged by the present petitioner with respondent No.3, which culminated in an eviction order dated 22.8.2022, under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (in short, "PP Act"). Besides the aforesaid, connivance inter se respondent No.3 and the present petitioner is also alleged in the plaint. 4. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the reliefs, which are being sought by respondent No.1 in the Civil Suit No.199/2023, wherein the present petitioner had filed an application for being impleaded as a party. The reliefs claimed therein are being reproduced herein below for a ready reference:- "(a) That, it be declared that the eviction orders dated 22.8.2022 is wrong, illegal, null and void abinitio and having no binding effect on the rights of the plaintiff, inhabitants and public at large. (b) That it be declared that motorable road marked and, depicted in suit land as ABCD and their old, ancient, continue uninterrupted, long and the plaintiff other inhabitants of the area and public at large are having right, title and interest to use the same to ingress and outgress from their agriculture land and residential houses. (b) That it be declared that motorable road marked and, depicted in suit land as ABCD and their old, ancient, continue uninterrupted, long and the plaintiff other inhabitants of the area and public at large are having right, title and interest to use the same to ingress and outgress from their agriculture land and residential houses. (c) That it be declared that the plaintiff other inhabitants and public at large are having their old, ancient, continue uninterrupted, long right of worship, over holy pious place of worship" Chortan/ Tomb of ancestors and their old, ancient, continue, uninterrupted, long right of worship and peaceful gathering on the eve of occasion of worship on holy pious place "Chortan' Tomb" over the part of the suit land marked as EFGH of plaintiff and priest of Buddhism and having the right to pay homage by peaceful gathering on the occasion of worship on holy pious place "Chortan /Tomb" over the part of the suit land marked as EFGH (d) That, the defendants may be restrained through perpetual injunction from causing any unlawful interference over the suit land, from disturbing and forcible dispossession destroying and dismantling motorable road marked and depicted in suit land as ABCD and to demolish and destroy the holy pious place of worship " Chortan/Tomb" and not to cause any unlawful, interference, threatening of destruction changing the nature of the same or any part thereof either themselves, or through their agents, servants, official or any other agency, through muscle powers, machinery or any other forceful means in any manner whatsoever. (e) That, in case of succeeding in doing, the defendants may also be directed to restore the suit land in its original position by issuing mandatory injunction. (f) A decree to this effect together with costs of the suit may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff, against the defendants and any  other relief to which the Plaintiff may be found entitled to in the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice." 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer to application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the present petitioner before the learned trial Court. The same is appended along with as Annexure P-2. In the aforesaid backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer to application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the present petitioner before the learned trial Court. The same is appended along with as Annexure P-2. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that on a complaint of the present petitioner, the respondent No.3 had initiated eviction proceedings against respondents No.4 and 5 and vide order dated 22.08.2022, respondent No.3 had passed an eviction order against respondents No.4 and 5. In response filed thereto, it has been categorically averred that the present petitioner has no right, title over the property and no relief is being claimed against the present petitioner by respondent No.1, hence the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the litigation. 6. An illegal encroachment in Mohal Simsa materially affects the right to or enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the area (Mohal Simsa). The Authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute/"PP Act" to see that the area is not spoilt by illegal encroachment. All the residents in the area (Mohal Simsa) have their personal interest in the performance of the duty by the statutory authority under "PP Act". The special and substantial interest of the residents in the area is injured by the illegal encroachment. K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, (1974) 2 SCC 506 : The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.A necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding (See AIR 1963 SC 786 , titled Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Board of Revenue). True test lies not so much in an analysis of what are the constituents of the applicants’ rights, but rather in what would be the result on the subject matter of the action if those rights could be established, Devlin, J. has stated: "The test is ‘May the order for which the plaintiff is asking directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his legal rights’." Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 7. The three khasra numbers i.e. Khasra Nos.1326, 1327 and 1328 qua which the plaint has been filed are situated in Mohal Simsa, Phati Nasogi,Tehsil Manali,District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. From the cause title of the present petition, it is evident that the present petitioner is also a resident of the same area i.e village Rangri Mohal Simsa. Besides the aforesaid, connivance inter se respondent No.3 and the present petitioner is also alleged in the plaint. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, encroachment on Khasra Number 1328 by respondents No.4 and 5 was highlighted by present petitioner and its at his behest that eviction proceedings were initiated by respondent No.3, which culminated in an eviction order on 22.08.2022. Incidentally Khasra No.1328 is one of the khasra numbers qua which the plaint in the case at hand has been filed. Hence in a suit, wherein rights are being claimed qua lands wherefrom respondent No.1/plaintiff has been evicted, as an encroacher and qua which the present petitioner has been vigilant to ensure that no encroachments are made thereupon the petitioner is definitely a proper party to the lis, as being a resident of the area, he has a special and substantiate interest in the suit lands. 9. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that the learned trial Court, while dealing with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the present petitioner has failed to exercise jurisdiction, in terms of parameters discussed hereinabove. Keeping in view the same, I am of the considered view that the order dated 05.04.2024, rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, by the present petitioner needs to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to judgment dated 04.07.2025, passed in CWP No.8554 of 2024, titled Nishant Mahajan and Anr. Vs. State of HP and Ors., whereby Nishant Mahajan and Anr had un-successfully assailed eviction order dated 22.08.2022. The petitioners in CWP No.8554 of 2024, titled Nishant Mahajan and Anr., Sh. Ravi are admittedly the same persons, who had purchased the property in the year 2011/2012 from the present petitioner i.e Ravi. Vs. State of HP and Ors., whereby Nishant Mahajan and Anr had un-successfully assailed eviction order dated 22.08.2022. The petitioners in CWP No.8554 of 2024, titled Nishant Mahajan and Anr., Sh. Ravi are admittedly the same persons, who had purchased the property in the year 2011/2012 from the present petitioner i.e Ravi. From a perusal of the judgment dated 04.07.2025, passed in CWP No.8554 of 2024, specifically para 2 thereof, it is evident that a FIR No.142 of 2011 had been registered against present respondent No.1 (plaintiff) and his brother Vikram Singh under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 at Police Station Manali. The FIR pertained to an encroachment made upon forest land by respondent No.1(plaintiff) and his brother Vikram Singh on Khasra Nos.470, 1316, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1326, 1327 and 1328. Out of the aforesaid eight khasra numbers, three khasra numbers i.e. Khasra Nos.1326, 1327 and 1328 are subject matter of the suit filed by respondent No.1, wherein the petitioner had sought impleadment. 11. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR No.142 of 2011, the eight khasra numbers were got demarcated on 13.02.2013. In view of the objections raised by the present respondent No.1(plaintiff) and his brother Vikram Singh, fresh demarcation was got conducted on 13.02.2013 by the Collector, Forest Division Kullu. The fresh demarcation was done on 28.03.2016 by the revenue officials in the presence of the representatives of respondent No.1(plaintiff) and his brother Vikram Singh. 12. Subsequent thereto, the Collector, Forest Division Kullu, HP, vide order dated 05.04.2016, concluded that land comprised in the above mentioned eight khasra numbers were vacant. The Range Forest Officer Manali was directed to take over possession of the land comprised in these numbers and fence the area with barbed wire for preventing the encroachment in future. The above said order dated 05.04.2016, was accepted by respondent No.1(plaintiff) and his brother Vikram Singh. No appeal therefrom was carried forward before any statutory authority. 13. The proceedings in the case at hand had been conducted under Section 4(1) of the "PP Act". The above said order dated 05.04.2016, was accepted by respondent No.1(plaintiff) and his brother Vikram Singh. No appeal therefrom was carried forward before any statutory authority. 13. The proceedings in the case at hand had been conducted under Section 4(1) of the "PP Act". In the judgment dated 04.07.2025, passed in CWP No.8554 of 2024, effect of the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the Collector, Forest Division Kullu, HP, has been noticed in the following terms:- "It was not for the first time that Collector Forest Kullu had ordered removal of encroachment with direction to the Forest Department to take possession of the land over Khasra No. 1328 under order dated 22.08.2022. Prior to this date also, there had been an order passed by the Collector Forest concerning encroachment over Khasra No. 1328 and removal thereof. The said order was passed on 05.04.2016 in Case No. 17(M)/2012- 13, instituted by the Forest Department against S/Sh. Ravi and Vikram Singh both sons of Sh. Nihal Chand r/o Village Rangri, Tehsil Manali, Distt. Kullu. Sh. Ravi is admittedly the same person from whom the petitioners had purchased the property in the year 2011/2012. Proceedings under H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 were instituted against S/Sh. Ravi and Vikram Singh on 25.03.2013. The demarcation of the land conducted by the revenue officials reported breaking of the land comprised in eight khasra numbers including 1328 by constructing a ‘Gompa’ and planting an apple orchard. The demarcation report was not accepted by respondents therein. A fresh demarcation at their request was ordered by the Collector Forest. Fresh demarcation was conducted on 28.03.2016 in presence of revenue and forest officials as also the representatives of the respondents. The fresh demarcation reported that Khasra No. 1328 was vacant and there were nine trees of Deodar, one tree each of Kail & Popular over it. Over other seven khasra numbers, encroachments were detected. Learned Counsel for the respondents (therein) expressed satisfaction with the demarcation report. The Collector Forest disposed of the case on 05.04.2016 with direction to the Forest Department to take possession of the land comprised in all khasra numbers including 1328 with further direction to fence the area with barbed wire so that no encroachment takes place in future. Respondents in the aforesaid case – S/Sh. Ravi and Vikram Singh did not assail the aforesaid order in appeal. Respondents in the aforesaid case – S/Sh. Ravi and Vikram Singh did not assail the aforesaid order in appeal. The order became final. Thus, it is writ large that Khasra No. 1328 belongs to the Forest Department. It has already been held in the order dated 05.04.2016 that S/Sh. Ravi and Vikram Singh had encroached over the land in dispute in the said case by constructing a ‘Gompa’ and planting an apple orchard. The findings have become absolute." 14. From a perusal of the plaint i.e. Annexure P-1 filed by respondent No.1 bearing No.199/23, wherein the present petitioner is impleaded, it is evident that conspicuous by absence in the same is a mention of order dated 05.04.2016, passed by the Collector, Forest Division Kullu, HP under Section 4(1) of the "PP Act" against respondent No.1(plaintiff). 15. "Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. Any party who approaches the Court for grant of relief must do so with clean hands. He must place the full facts before the Court. He should neither withhold material facts nor suppress facts. No party should make an attempt to mislead the Court. The claim of such a party who tries to give false facts should be rejected without even considering the merits of the case. Almost a century back Scrutton L.J. speaking for the Court in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, 1917 (1) KB 486 very succinctly laid down the principle 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". 16. 16. Viscount Reading C.J. in the same case observed as follows:- "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 applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the 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 this 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.". 17. The Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) By L.Rs. Vs Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others., AIR 1994 SC 853 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:: "x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the, illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. x x x x x". 18. In G. Jayashree and Ors. Vs. Bhagwandass S. Patel & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 141 similar view was taken by the Apex Court.. 19. In K.D. Sharma Vs. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. x x x x x". 18. In G. Jayashree and Ors. Vs. Bhagwandass S. Patel & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 141 similar view was taken by the Apex Court.. 19. In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.& Ors, (2008) 12 SCC 481 the Apex Court after citing a number of judgments held as follows:- " x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 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 pay 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 the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners 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, maneuvering 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. 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. x x x x x x x x x ". 20. This well-known principle of law is now an integral part of Indian Jurisprudence. 21. Once respondent No.1(plaintiff) in the case at hand has been evicted from the suit land i.e. Khasra Nos.1326, 1327 and 1328, vide order dated 05.04.2016, passed by the Collector, Forest Division Kullu, HP, exercising powers under Section 4 of the "PP Act" the suit filed before the Civil Judge Manali, wherein the present petitioner was seeking impleadment as a party is a frivolous litigation, wasting the Court’s valuable time and resources. It is the duty of this Court to curb such litigation, so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation. In this respect reference can be made to SLP(C) Diary No.56230 of 2024, titled Pandurang Vithal Kevne Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr. The relevant extract is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "18. The petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation has wasted the court’s valuable time and resources. It is in interest of justice that genuine and timely claims are addressed efficiently, without being hindered by such unscrupulous litigation. We may refer here an observation given by this Court in Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India: "150. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part." 19.. This Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , has strongly condemned litigants who use the justice system for their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice. It was observed as under: "1. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. It was observed as under: "1. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." 20. Time and again, this Court has raised deterrence against frivolous appeals and petitions by imposition of costs on the litigating parties. This court in the case of K.C. Tharakan Vs State Bank of India & Ors. held the following: "No legal system can have a scenario where a person keeps on raking up the issue again and again once it is resolved at highest level. This is complete wastage of judicial time. We, thus, dismiss this petition with costs, though we limit the amount of costs considering the petitioner is a dismissed person. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates- on-Record Welfare Fund to be utilized for the SCBA library." 21. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in this Special Leave Petition, hence, the same is dismissed. As there is no merit in the petition, we don’t deem it appropriate to even condone the delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 22. Considering that precious time of this Court and the High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost, to give clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation. 22. In view of above the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, order dated 05.04.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge Manali in CMA No.37 of 2024 in CS No.199/2023, is quashed and the present petitioner is impleaded as a party defendant. Civil Suit bearing No.199/2023, titled Ravi Chand Thakur Vs. State of HP and Ors., pending before the learned Civil Judge, Manali is dismissed with cost @ Rs.1,00,000/-. The same be deposited in the "Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Account No. 18330110060070, IFSC Code: UCBA0001833, Branch: High Court Complex, Shimla". Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. List for compliance on 13.11.2025.