JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. AS short question is involved, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is taken up for final disposal forthwith. The respondent filed suit simplicitor for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner from raising any construction, changing the nature and dispossessing the respondent from land measuring 15 bigha comprised in khata/khatauni No. 21 min/21 min, khasra No. 205, 211, 218 and 219 (II) land measuring 9 bigha 13 biswa comprised in khata/khatauni No. 23 min/23 min, khasra No. 214, 216 and 217, i.e. total land measuring 24 bigha 13 biswa situated in the area of village Judi Kalan, HB No. 210, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 3. IN that suit, respondent took out application for interim relief. The trial Court, after considering the relevant aspects, dismissed the said application. The finding recorded by the trial Court in paragraph 17, which is germane for rejecting the application for interim relief, reads thus: "17. The plaintiff in the pleading claimed that the defendant threatening to change the nature of the suit land. The plaintiff has no where pleaded that the construction has been raised on the spot. Further, the plaintiff has no where claimed that earlier the suit land was transferred of to defendant. It is revealed from the record that the defendant purchased more than 40 bighas of land including suit land for the construction of a residential colony. The defendant has placed on record minutes of general meeting of the defendant company vide which S.K. Bajaj who is husband of the plaintiff removed from the Directorship of the company. Further, the defendant has placed on record a certificate showing that amount of Rs. 4,27,888/ was paid as commission to the plaintiff on account of sale of plot. These facts prima facie shows that the plaintiff was aware of the construction raised on the spot and aware about the fact that the residential colony has been raised on the spot. However, the plaintiff has concealed the material fact from the court. A person who comes to the court to seek an equitable relief must state all the material fact within his/her knowledge may in any way affecting the merits of the case. A person who concealed the material fact is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction. However, the plaintiff has concealed the material fact from the court. A person who comes to the court to seek an equitable relief must state all the material fact within his/her knowledge may in any way affecting the merits of the case. A person who concealed the material fact is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction. In this context, it is relevant to refer 1996 (1) S.L.J. 723 titled as Sukh Dev vs State. Further, it is relevant to refer AIR 1992 Delhi 197 titled as M/S Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and another." 4. THE respondent took the matter in appeal by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2NL/14 of 2011. The Appellate Court considered all other matters to grant interim relief of status quo in favour of the respondent except the relevant aspect considered by the trial Court in paragraph 17 of its judgment, which has been reproduced hitherto. Unless the said finding recorded by the trial Court were to be set aside and over turned by the Appellate Court, it is doubtful whether the plaintiff would be entitled for any interim order, which is obviously an equitable order to be passed in the pending suit and if the conduct of the plaintiff is doubtful, the question of showing indulgence to such plaintiff would not be appropriate. 5. INSTEAD of expressing any final opinion on this aspect of the matter, I deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the decision of the Appellate Court and relegate the parties before the Appellate Court for reconsideration of the appeal on merits afresh and, in particular, with reference to the finding recorded by the trial Court for refusing interim relief to the plaintiff. 6. THE petition is allowed. The impugned decision is quashed and set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2NL/ 14 of 2011 is restored to the file of the Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., for reconsideration on merits afresh. The parties shall appear before the Appellate Court on 14th August, 2013, when the Appellate Court may issue appropriate directions to place the matter for hearing and finally dispose of the appeal preferably on or before 30th September, 2013. It is made clear that all questions are left open to be decided by the Appellate Court afresh, in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that all questions are left open to be decided by the Appellate Court afresh, in accordance with law. 7. IN the peculiar facts of the present case, since the petitioner has suffered the interim order passed by the Appellate Court since April, 2012, the parties shall maintain status quo, as of today, with regard to the suit property till 30th September, 2013, or till the final decision of the appeal, whichever is earlier. This order will not be any impediment for the Appellate Court to pass appropriate order after hearing the appeal afresh. 8. THE record be remitted to the trial Court to continue with the hearing of the trial irrespective of the pendency of the appeal. The record be sent forthwith.