JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. In this petition under section 104 of the State Constitution, petitioner challenges order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Samba in appeal, whereby order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the trial court in an application for temporary injunction has been set aside. 3. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the record. 4. In the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction relating to land comprised in Khasra Nos. 167 and 168, the appellant (plaintiff) alleges construction by the respondents (defendants) on a prime portion of the joint land. Learned trial court vide its order dated 19.09.2016 (supra) directed both the sides to maintain the status quo. Learned appellate court, however, set aside the order of the trial court by the order impugned in this petition. The relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate court reads: “Applying the aforesaid principles of law to the facts of the case in hand, it is reiterated, that out of the suit land comprising in survey No. 167 min measuring 43 kanal, 18 marla and survey No. 168 measuring 26 kanal, 07 marla, respondent No. 1/plaintiff’s brother respondent No. 2 Surinder Singh, his mother and sisters have sold 18 kanal, 10 marla out of the suit land with the consent of respondent No.1/plaintiff, to Charan Singh and Usha Chaudhary, regarding which respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed suit on 02.04.2012 which is pending before this court titled Vijay Singh versus Anil Jamwal & ors., wherein, the vendees are in possession of the sold land; moreso, appellants and respondents entered into an agreement on 30.10.2010 which was reduced into writing signed by the parties in presence of the witnesses, whereby, suit land bearing Khasra No. 167 was partitioned; in the replica filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff he has admitted with regard to agreement dated 30.10.2010 and also admitted transfer of land by his brother respondent No. 2 Surinder Singh in favour of Charan Singh & Usha Chaudhary, but all such aforesaid material facts have been concealed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff from this Court. It is a beaten law, that a person who seeks equity must do equity, the conduct of a party who claims equitable relief should be free from any blame, the party must be fair & honest, must disclose all the facts for and against him, and these considerations would arise not only in respect of a person who seeks an order of injunction under O 39 R 1 & 2 of CPC, but also in respect of a party approaching the court for vacating the ad-interim temporary injunction already granted in the pending suit or proceedings. In the case in hand, respondent No.1/plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands, has suppressed material facts from the court, therefore, he is not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find a strong prima-facie case in favour of respondent No. 1/plaintiff, muchless a debatable and arguable point for consideration at the trial. Appellants/defendants have strong prima-facie for vacation of impugned status-quo order dated 19.09.2016.” 5. On its plain reading, the aforementioned portion of the impugned order would show that the learned trial court without weighing the merits of the case has taken the view that since the plaintiff/appellant did not approach the trial court with clean hands, inasmuch as some facts were concealed, so he does not have prima facie case. The view taken by the appellate court is palpably wrong. Learned appellate court was required accord consideration to the merits of the case, though concealment of facts, if any, could have been one of the factors in such consideration. 6. Viewed thus, the impugned order is set aside and learned appellate court is asked to decide the appeal afresh on merits. Till disposal of the appeal status quo on spot shall be maintained. 7. The appellate court is requested to dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously within four weeks hereafter. Registry shall send a copy of this order forthwith to the appellate court, where both the sides shall cause their appearance on 11.08.2017. Disposed of.