D.R. Khanna, J.
(1) ADMITTED. Since the respondents have defaulted in making appearance though served, I proceed to decide this revision.
(2) The plaintiffs/respondents have brought, a suit in the trial court, seeking restraint of the Municipal Corporation from demolishing certain alleged unauthorised constructed portion of the property in dispute. The main grievance made is said to be that no notice was properly served upon the plaintiffs before recourse to such intended action of demolition was taken. The suit has been pending for over two years, and an interim injunction was obtained by the plaintiffs against the demolition. The Municipal Corporation in the circumstances, felt that instead of going further into the controversy whether the notice had been served properly or not, it would be safe to serve another notice so that all possible objections about service are eliminated. The Municipal Corporation, however, did not succeed as according Mr. Rohtagi, the plaintiffs started playing hide and seek. However, they continued to make appearance in the suit, and when the Municipal Corporation sought service of notice them or their counsel, they declined to take such notice. In this manner, Mr. Rohtagi states that the plaintiffs still are indulging in hide and seek, and thereby taking benefit of interim injunction issued by the trial court and exploiting technical objections about the proper service of earlier notice.
(3) At the last hearing when this matter came up before this Court, the Municipal Corporation was not in position to produce a notice which could be served upon the respondents. The matter was) thereforee, adjourned to this date, and Mr. Rohtagi states that he has brought the notice today. The respondents have, however, chosen to remain absent, and this appears to be to again avoid service of the notice. I do not think that the plaintiffs/ respondents should be allowed to succeed in this evasive game.
(4) The revision is allowed, and the Municipal Corporation is made entitled to get the service effected of a fresh notice on the respondents in the trial court. If these respondents do not make appearance to receive notice, the trial court can well vacate the interim injunction. It need hardly be impressed that a person seeking equitable relief of injunction, must come with clean hands, and if his conduct is not straight, the relief in that direction can be denied to him, or if granted earlier as an interim measure, withdrawn. It is not a question of court being made a conduct pipe for effecting service on the plaintiffs/respondents. The notice pertains to the very subjects matter of the suit, and the fresh notice is to obviate any technical objections to the actual service of the notice raised by the plaintiffs in the suit. In case the notice is unwarranted the plaintiffs/respondents will be competent to file objections to the notice and get them determined in accordance with Jaw.