than in accordance with law, since notices were issued threatening eviction from the premises occupied by the appellants. Therefore, according to us, the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and the suit are entirely different, though the issues may have some connection. According to us, the cause of action in both the proceedings are entirely different, which is one of the material aspects to be taken into account for ascertaining whether there is any material suppression. Even though learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has a contention that the failure on the part of the appellants to mention the pendency of the writ petition in question in the suit is a suppression, as we have pointed out earlier, going through the pleadings and the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and the plaints, we are of the considered opinion that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and the suits are entirely different and therefore, it cannot be said that there is material suppression on the part of the appellants in not mentioning the pendency of the writ petition in question before this Court. It is true, the appellants could have said about the pendency of the writ petition in the plaint. However, we do not think that the learned Single Judge was correct in declining jurisdiction on that basis, because the likelihood of influencing the pendency of the writ petition in the suit or vice versa is bleak. Moreover, the number of the earlier disposed of writ petition on the basis of Exhibit P5 representation is mentioned in the
