1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing judgment and order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.11.2012 which had been passed by the learned Munsiff, Jammu rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed a suit against his real brother, Nawab Din as well as his Attorney holder, Salamat Ali, wherein he challenged the General Power of Attorney dated 02.04.2011 attested by Sub-Registrar, III Additional Munsiff Jammu on 02.04.2011 on the ground that it was null and void, incompetent and inoperative against his rights in respect of the suit land comprising Survey no.116 min measuring 14 marlas. It was pleased that the defendant no.1 was his co-sharer and, therefore, he had no exclusive right of sale/transfer of the said piece of land. The petitioner in his suit also sought for the consequential relief of directing defendant no.2 in the suit to remove the debris that had been accumulated on the suit land. 3. Alongside the suit, the petitioner also made an application for interim relief. It appears that, subject to objections of the other side, the trial court on 05.09.2012, ordered maintenance of status-quo with regard to the suit land. 4. Upon notice, the defendants filed their written statement as well as objections to the application for interim relief. After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the trial court vide order dated 14.11.2012 rejected the application for interim relief. The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the appellate Court, but that court dismissed the appeal. 5. It may be observed here that the trial court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is has concealed material facts from the court in order to obtain ex-parte injunction silent. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 , that such a party who conceals material facts from the court is liable to be thrown out from the court at any stage and has no right to approach the Court of law, the trial court has rejected the interim application of the petitioner-plaintiff. 6. 6. The appellate Court, i.e., the Principal District Judge, Jammu has recorded the following finding: “...The plaint of the appellant filed before the learned trial court reveals that he has concealed all these material facts and has not come to the court with clean hands. He has taken different stands in all the suits which were filed by him before the courts below. By his conduct, it stands established that he has himself admitted the factum of partition and now it does not lie in his mouth to say that the land is yet un-partitioned.” The Principal District Judge has further recorded that “all these material facts have been concealed by the appellant which disentitle him to any equitable relief of injunction”. 7. In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the courts below have not appreciated the law and facts in their proper perspective and that the petitioner has been non-suited. 8. In a writ petition Filed under Art. 26 of the Constitution read with Section 103 of the State Constitution, this Court would not hold an enquiry into the disputed facts. There is a concurrent finding from the two courts below and this Court in its writ jurisdiction will be loath in setting aside the said concurrent findings. 9. I do not find any ground, muchless a good ground, to admit this petition to hearing. It is dismissed in limine along with the connected CMP. 10. However, parties to bear their own costs.