https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282576 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and will not aid a litigant who suppresses material facts or approaches the court without clean hands. A challenge to a compromise decree on alleged fraud and forged signatures required disputed factual inquiry, which was unsuitable for summary proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. Since the petitioner had already filed a regular civil suit for adjudication of title and fraud, the application was held not maintainable in the circumstances. The refusal to entertain the application was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 17 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282576 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and will not aid a litigant who suppresses material facts or approaches the court without clean hands. A challenge to a compromise decree on alleged fraud and forged signatures required disputed factual inquiry, which was unsuitable for summary proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. Since the petitioner had already filed a regular civil suit for adjudication of title and fraud, the application was held not maintainable in the circumstances. The refusal to entertain the application was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282576