Court is whether the Petitioner has deliberately misled the Court by failing to disclose the relevant documents and orders. Mr. Gupta, counsel for the Petitioner, attempts to justify this omission by arguing that there was no requirement to place these documents on record. He asserts that the Petitioner, is not challenging the Respondent’s specific order of refusal concerning the Subject Property. Instead, the Petitioner seeks a broader direction from this Court to facilitate the registration of any and all sale deeds executed by the Petitioner. However, this explanation is not entirely convincing. The orders in question, particularly those imposing status quo on the Petitioner’s assets, are directly relevant to the relief sought in the present case. By omitting to file these documents, the Petitioner appears to have disregarded the broader context and potential legal restrictions surrounding the registration of property transactions. Proper disclosure of these orders was not only necessary for transparency, but also crucial for this Court to make an informed and equitable decision. Furthermore, the fact that the Petitioner seeks a blanket order from this Court, while glossing over previous status quo orders, raises serious concerns as to whether the Petitioner has acted in good faith.
