1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.7.2002 recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in respect of an application for issuance of ad-interim injunction arising out of Civil Original Suit titled as Union of India & Anr. Vs. Nek Ram Sharma. 2. It appears that a Civil Original Suit for ejectment of suit premises which comprises of a building located at Pacca Danga, Jammu came to be instituted by Nek Ram respondent herein before the Principal District Judge, Jammu against the present appellant. This suit came to be registered as COA No.23 of 23.9.1994 in the office of Principal District Judge, Jammu. In this suit, the defendants/appellants herein came to file written statement wherein they came to admit the respondent Nek Ram as landlord of the suit premises. After full dressed trial, this suit came to be decreed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu by virtue of judgment dated 24.3.1995. This judgment and decree came to be challenged before this Court by the appellants herein and the Learned Single Judge of this Court came to dismiss the appeal after concurring with the Trial Court judgment. This judgment of the learned Single Judge came to be further challenged by the appellants before the Letters Patent Bench where also the appellants failed. Thereafter, it appears the appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking directions in the names of State and its instrumentality to take possession of the property and for which respondent had obtained an order of ejectment. This writ petition also came to be dismissed on 26.4.2002 as misconceived by Hon™ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. V.K. Jhanji as his lordship then was. Now after having failed before the Trial Court, before the appellate Court and also before the Writ Court, the appellants have instituted a suit challenging therein the said decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu as null and void and obtained by fraud with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from taking over possession of the said property on the basis of execution of the said decree. Alongside this suit an application for issuance of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent to take possession of said property came to be presented. Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties has by virtue of impugned order rejected the prayer for issuance of ad-interim injunction sought by the appellants. 3. Alongside this suit an application for issuance of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent to take possession of said property came to be presented. Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties has by virtue of impugned order rejected the prayer for issuance of ad-interim injunction sought by the appellants. 3. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The grounds on which the appellants have passed the present suit are that the suit premises is a Nazool Property allotted to one Khem Singh. After his death this property was taken over by his legal heirs who in turn leased out the same in favour of the respondent without permission of the Government. That the respondent in his ejectment suit filed against the appellants concealed all the material facts as a result of which has obtained the decree of ejectment by playing fraud with the Court and the respondent/defendant has leased out the property to the appellants/plaintiffs without prior sanction of the government as a result of which lease stamps determined on the very day of Sub-lease in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. Perusal of the judgment of the earlier suit No.22/94 delivered by the trial Court reveals that almost all the pleas which the appellants have raised in the present suit were available to him in the earlier suit because the issue now raised by the appellants in this subsequent suit that the plaintiff/respondent is not owner of land and it is actually Nazool Property and belongs to State of J&K was directly and substantively in issue in the former suit in between the parties and with respect to it, an additional issue was framed in the earlier suit which for the convenience is reproduced as under:- "Whether the plaintiff is competent to institute the suit for ejectment ?" 5. This issue stands decided by the Trial Court against respondent/plaintiff after holding that this is contrary to the admission made in para 1 and 2 of the written statement having admitted the plaintiff as landlord can not challenge his competence to institute the suit. This findings has attained finality. This issue stands decided by the Trial Court against respondent/plaintiff after holding that this is contrary to the admission made in para 1 and 2 of the written statement having admitted the plaintiff as landlord can not challenge his competence to institute the suit. This findings has attained finality. Besides this, an indicated appellants before the institution of the present suit invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of direction in the name of the State for taking possession of the suit premises as the same is Nazool property for which Nek Ram has obtained an ejectment decree which is null and void. This writ petition as indicated stands dismissed by this Court as misconceived. The appellants/plaintiffs have suppressed these material facts before the Trial Court in the present suit. This would show their conduct and in view of this conduct, it is to be seen whether they are entitled to the equitable relief sought by him them by way of interim injunction. There can not be two opinion about the principle of law that if a person seeks equity he has to come with clean hands. If a litigant conceals or suppresses material facts deliberately to obtain equitable relief from the Court his conduct will disentitle him from seeking such relief. 6. Viewed thus, impugned order does not suffer with any legal error or infirmity and is in no manner erroneous. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.