JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred the present appeal impugning the order dated 03.06.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar whereby interim relief has been granted in favour of respondent No. 1. 2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents (appellants herein) from interfering in the process of construction being raised by him on the plot in dispute. Along with the suit an application for interim injunction was filed. The same was allowed vide impugned order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned court below. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned order passed by the learned court below submitted that the learned court below did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act') specifically bars jurisdiction of the civil court unless remedy of appeal is availed. Even Section 9 CPC also provides that civil court can try the suit only which are not specifically barred. He further submitted that the relief granted by the Court was the final relief which the respondent No. 1 had prayed for however, the same has been granted at interim stage. Meaning thereby the suit itself has been decreed without there being any evidence on record. As a result the respondent No. 1 has been permitted to raise construction on the property which is even not owned by him. In support of his plea reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 3101 titled as Secretary, UPSC and Anr. v. S. Krishna Chaitanya and on a judgment of this Court reported as 2008 (1) JKJ 112 [HC], titled as Surjeet Singh v. Principal Woodland and Anr. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that what to talk of grant of interim relief even the suit filed by respondent No. 1 deserves to be dismissed on account of concealment of material facts. Respondent No. 1 had earlier filed two writ petitions in this Court, bearing OWP Nos. 312/2019 & 347/2019 raising the same issues. However, the fact thereof was not disclosed in the suit filed before the court below. Respondent No. 1 had earlier filed two writ petitions in this Court, bearing OWP Nos. 312/2019 & 347/2019 raising the same issues. However, the fact thereof was not disclosed in the suit filed before the court below. OWP No. 347/2019 was disposed of only on 27.03.2019, in terms of which respondent No. 1 was to approach the appellant-Cantonment Board during the course of that week for removing the deficiencies, if any, pointed out by the appellant-Cantonment Board. Thereafter, application filed by the respondent No. 1 for raising construction was to be decided. Without following that process, merely within two days thereafter the respondent No. 1 filed the suit on 29.03.2019, concealing the aforesaid facts. The learned court below has also failed to appreciate this conduct of respondent No. 1. In support of his argument reliance was placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in JT 2008 (8) SC 57, titled as K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that some of the documents which have been referred by the court below for justifying its order, were not placed on record by the respondent No. 1 along with the plaint. These could not even be cited as these came into existence after filling of the suit. 5. He further argued that in the written statement filed, a specific plea was taken that the application of the respondent No. 1 seeking permission to raise construction was rejected by the competent authority on 17.04.2019. The order was produced before the learned court below and the same was subject to appeal before the appellate authority but still instead of availing remedy against the order so passed, which had direct bearing on the relief claimed by respondent No. 1, learned trial court granted interim injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1. He further referred to communication dated 29.03.2019 from Defence Estates Officer, Kashmir Circle, Srinagar to the Chief Executive Officer Badami Bagh Cantt. Srinagar stating that as per GLR (General Land Registration) maintained by the office, the plot in question is recorded as defence land. In support of the plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 SCW 5438 , titled as Usha Kapoor & Ors. v. Government of India and Ors. Srinagar stating that as per GLR (General Land Registration) maintained by the office, the plot in question is recorded as defence land. In support of the plea, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 SCW 5438 , titled as Usha Kapoor & Ors. v. Government of India and Ors. The submission is that respondent No. 1 is raising construction on the land which is recorded as 'B3 Defence Land'. 6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that suit was filed on 29.03.2019. The prayer was only for injunction restraining the appellants from interfering in their right to raise construction on the plot owned by them. As there was interference, the only remedy was to file a suit. By that time, there was no order of rejection of the application filed by respondent No. 1, seeking permission to raise construction. 7. The first relief claimed by the respondent No. 1 was withdrawn from the suit as is noticed in the order passed by the learned trial court. It is stated that as the respondent No. 1 has a right to raise construction on account of deemed permission. The suit had to be filed to stop the interference. The rejection came later on. This plea was raised in the written statement. The contention is that suit was filed beyond the time prescribed for deciding the application seeking permission to raise construction. Bar of Section 250 of the Act will not apply in the case of respondent No. 1 as there was no order passed by any authority till such time the suit was filed. The plot in question was purchased by respondent No. 1 by way of a registered sale deed from large chunk of land measuring 51 kanals. All the owners have already raised construction without any objection by any authority and it is only respondent No. 1 who is being objected to. He further referred to the writ petition filed by the Evacuee Department against the defence authority raising dispute regarding ownership of the property. It is stated that in some of the cases, this Court had allowed the parties therein to raise construction. 8. Mr. He further referred to the writ petition filed by the Evacuee Department against the defence authority raising dispute regarding ownership of the property. It is stated that in some of the cases, this Court had allowed the parties therein to raise construction. 8. Mr. Qureshi, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 further argued that the issue regarding ownership of certain properties was raised even by the then Major General with the State vide his letter dated 28.01.2019. He also referred to a communication dated 01.05.2019 from Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir reporting that on spot verification it was found that the property in question is not defence property. It was submitted that aforesaid survey was carried out in pursuance of communication dated 28.01.2019 from the then Major General to the Chief Secretary of the State of J&K. Once the appellants have no right on the property they had no business to interfere with the construction being raised and on account of having deemed permission, respondent No. 1 had a right to raise construction. Interim relief prayed for was to be granted by the court below as all the ingredients there for are available in the case. 9. Regarding allegations of concealing of facts, it was submitted that respondent No. 1 followed due process as per law. No deficiencies were pointed out by the authorities in the application filed by him within the time permitted. As regard the documents which were produced by the respondent No. 1 before the court below Mr. Qureshi, learned senior counsel submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants as these are official documents. Once ownership of the respondent No. 1 is proved, he could not be restrained from raising construction. In terms of the order passed by the learned court below, the respondent No. 1 has even filed an undertaking. He further submitted that the grounds of rejection have become redundant in view of demarcation report dated 03.06.2019. 10. It was further argued that the respondent No. 1 has even filed an appeal against the order dated 17.04.2019, rejecting the permission for raising construction. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that as the area belongs to the defence, it is in the process of filing an appeal. Its right may not be prejudiced in the present appeal. 12. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that as the area belongs to the defence, it is in the process of filing an appeal. Its right may not be prejudiced in the present appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. In the case in hand, before the arguments of the parties are dealt with, it would be appropriate to refer to certain facts on record. Suit was filed by respondent No. 1 on 29.03.2019 seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) A decree of declaration, declaring acts of omission and commission by the defendants while interfering with the construction being carried out by the plaintiff as void, illegal, unconstitutional and illegal. (b) A decree of permanent injunction be granted in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant-board, its laborers, hired persons, field staff, wherein the defendant-board be permanently restrained prevented from causing any interference permanently from demolishing the construction of plaintiffs house in view of deemed sanction/permission. (c) That a decree of Mandatory injunction be granted wherein the plaintiff be allowed to raise construction of her residential house under the provisions of Deemed sanction/permission without any interference from any quarter including defendant-board and their field staff in any manner directly or indirectly. (d) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, their staff and any other person/s acting through or under them, perpetually from demolishing the suit property, whether in part or in whole, or otherwise causing any damage or injury to the suit property situated at Mouza Sonwar, Srinagar. (e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their agents, their staff and any other person/s acting through or under them. The suit be decreed with costs." 14. Along with the suit following documents were annexed, namely, copy of sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1, notice dated 15.1.2019 by the respondent No. 1 under Section 235 of the Cantonment Act of 2006 for intention to erect building, an application dated 15.1.2018 seeking permission to raise construction of residential house, a copy of the sanctioned plan, a receipt dated 18.01.2019 for deposit of Rs. 400/- and a notice dated 20.02.2019 given by respondent No. 1 to the Cantonment Board under Section 238 of Cantonment Act, 2006. To this, written statement was filed by the appellants on 30.04.2019 annexing 08 documents along with that including letter dated 17.04.2019 whereby the application of respondent No. 1 seeking permission to raise construction was rejected. Written statement was also filed by the Defence Estate Officer raising various issues and disputing the ownership of the respondent No. 1 on the plot in dispute. 15. Thereafter there is another set of documents on record filed by the respondent No. 1 along with the note titled as "sequences of events and documents" some of which came into existence after the filing of the suit, hence could not have been pleaded therein, whereas same are internal official correspondences between the defence and the State. 16. It would be relevant to mention about the cases filed by respondent No. 1 in this Court. The respondent No. 1 firstly filed OWP No. 312/2019 seeking the following prayer reliefs:- "By a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to cause any sort of interference in the process of Construction of house of petitioner situated at Mouza Sonwar, Srinagar on the land bonafidely owned by petitioner for construction of which permission is unconditionally granted under the deemed provision of Section 238 Sub Rule 6 of Cantonment Act 2006 and such construction be allowed to be completed as per the drawings/site plan already submitted before the respondents in terms of valid notice dated 15.01.2019 and continuous neglect and omission of respondents to the notice issued under Section 238 Sub Rule 6 of Cantonment Act, 2006, dated 20.02.2019. By a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from causing any sort of interference into the already commenced construction so raised by petitioner on the proprietary land bonafidely owned and possessed by him legally being constructed in lieu of deeming provision of Section 238 Sub Rule 6 of Cantonment Act, 2006." 17. After notice was issued in the aforesaid writ petition, IA No. 01/2019 was filed on 03.04.2019 seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition stating that the respondents have agreed to redress the grievances of the respondent No. 1. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn on 09.04.2019, without any liberty. After notice was issued in the aforesaid writ petition, IA No. 01/2019 was filed on 03.04.2019 seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition stating that the respondents have agreed to redress the grievances of the respondent No. 1. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn on 09.04.2019, without any liberty. Important fact to be noticed is that before withdrawal of the OWP No. 312/2019, respondent No. 1 filed OWP No. 347/2019 on 26.03.2019 seeking the following reliefs:- "By a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to cause any sort of interference in the process of construction of house of petitioner situated at Mouza Sonwar, Srinagar on the land bonafidely owned by petitioner for construction of which permission is unconditionally granted under the deemed provision of Section 238 Sub Rule 6 of Cantonment Act 2006 and such construction be allowed to be completed as per the drawings/site plan already submitted before the respondents in terms of valid notice dated 15.01.2019 and continuous neglect and omission of respondents to the notice issued under Section 238 Sub Rule 6 of Cantonment Act, 2006, dated 20.02.2019. By a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from causing any sort of interference into the already commenced construction so raised by petitioner on the proprietary land bona-fide land owned and possessed by him legally being constructed in lieu of deeming provision of Section 238 Sub Rule 6 of Cantonment Act, 2006." 18. The factum of filing of earlier writ petition bearing OWP No. 312/2019 was not disclosed in this writ petition, though the relief claimed was similar. Not only this, at the time of withdrawal of OWP No. 312/2019 on 09.04.2019, the factum of filing of subsequent writ petition bearing OWP No. 347/2019 was not disclosed to the Court as the only plea in the application was that the official respondents had agreed to redress the grievance of the respondent No. 1. OWP No. 347/2019 was disposed of by this Court on the first date of hearing on 27.03.2019 by passing following order:- "1. Petitioner claims that she is owner in possession of land measuring 01 Kanal situated at Mouza Sonwar, Srinagar. Grant of permission for construction of a residential house over aforesaid land is stated to have been sought for by petitioner and a written application, in this regard, filed by her before respondent-Cantonment Board, Badami Bagh, Srinagar which is still pending consideration. Petitioner claims that she is owner in possession of land measuring 01 Kanal situated at Mouza Sonwar, Srinagar. Grant of permission for construction of a residential house over aforesaid land is stated to have been sought for by petitioner and a written application, in this regard, filed by her before respondent-Cantonment Board, Badami Bagh, Srinagar which is still pending consideration. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner, to augment the case set up by petitioner, has stated that respondent-Cantonment Board in terms of Cantonment Act, 2006, is required to consider and decide petitioner's application within a period of one month. However, respondents have failed to discharge their statutory obligation and duty. 3. Mr. S.A. Makroo, learned counsel representing respondent-Cantonment Board, fairly states that petitioner has made an application for grant of permission, but due to some deficiencies, pointed out by respondent-Cantonment Board, petitioner's application could not be considered inasmuch as she has not come forward despite notice issued upon her and a consequence whereof the application is still pending. To this learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that petitioner will approach respondent-Board to make good deficiencies during the course of week. 4. Given the stand taken by learned counsel for parties, writ petition, at its threshold, is disposed of by providing that petitioner shall approach respondent-Cantonment Board during course of week for removing the deficiencies, if any, pointed out by respondent-Cantonment Board, and thereafter respondent-Cantonment Board shall consider and decide the application of petitioner strictly in accordance with admissible rules governing the field. In the event the outcome of the application does not come to the expectations of petitioner, she would be free to avail of appropriate remedy as available under law. Disposed of." 19. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that in view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Cantonment Board, respondent No. 1 had not come forward to remove the deficiencies despite notice. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 undertook that he will approach the Cantonment Board to remove the deficiencies during the course of that week. The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the parties to proceed further as the respondent No. 1 was to approach Cantonment Board to remove the deficiencies and in case respondent No. 1 was having any grievance he was free to avail of his appropriate remedy. The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the parties to proceed further as the respondent No. 1 was to approach Cantonment Board to remove the deficiencies and in case respondent No. 1 was having any grievance he was free to avail of his appropriate remedy. Without following the process as stated in the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1 instead of approaching the Cantonment Board for removing the deficiencies, if any, filed a suit on 29.03.2019. In the civil suit as well there is no mention of any petition filed by respondent No. 1 in this Court. Meaning thereby that at this stage as well there is concealment of facts from the Court. 20. Another important fact to be noticed is that after the suit was filed the same was registered and notice was issued to the defendants. Vide detailed order passed by the court below on 30.03.2019 interim stay was granted. Relevant part of the order is extracted below:- "Accordingly, subject to the objections, and till next hearing non-applicants/defendants are temporarily restrained not to cause any interference in the proposed construction provided that the petitioner/applicant has sought permission in terms of Section 235 of the Cantonment Act of 2006 and has fulfilled all the requisite formalities required thereof. The non applicants would be however at liberty to move the court earlier for the discharge or variation in case any ground is available to them. Applicant shall file an affidavit that any identical matter with regard to subject matter is not pending in any court or has not been decided so far. Put up on 15.04.2019." 21. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that specific direction therein was that the applicant shall file an affidavit that no case of the subject matter in dispute is pending or has been decided by any Court. From a perusal of the record of the court below, it is not evident that any affidavit has been filed in compliance to the aforesaid order by the respondent No. 1. The learned court below also extended the interim stay without ensuring compliance of the earlier order regarding filing of affidavit. 22. Issue regarding the conduct of a party not approaching the Court with clean hands and non-disclosure of material facts has been commented upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on number of occasions. The learned court below also extended the interim stay without ensuring compliance of the earlier order regarding filing of affidavit. 22. Issue regarding the conduct of a party not approaching the Court with clean hands and non-disclosure of material facts has been commented upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on number of occasions. Observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported in (2003) 9 SCC 401 : 2003 (2) JKJ 197 [SC] Vijay Syal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. are extracted below:- "In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice." 23. Reference can also be made to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as 2019 (2) JKJ 565 [HC] titled as Mani Ram v. Janak Singh and Ors.. 24. Keeping in view the aforesaid conduct of respondent No. 1, he is not entitled to any interim relief from the Court. 25. Still further order passed by the learned Court below cannot be sustained even on other ground, namely, consideration of the documents to support the order which are not even part of the pleadings. Though the learned court below has made strenuous efforts in writing order running 37 pages only for the purposes of deciding an application for interim injunction, but has failed to touch the real issue. Even the order rejecting the application of the respondent No. 1 for approval of master plan has also been discussed in the order and commented upon. Though the learned court below has made strenuous efforts in writing order running 37 pages only for the purposes of deciding an application for interim injunction, but has failed to touch the real issue. Even the order rejecting the application of the respondent No. 1 for approval of master plan has also been discussed in the order and commented upon. For the purposes the learned court below referred to the communication dated 28.01.2019 from the then Major General to the Chief Secretary of the State of J&K which has not even been pleaded in the plaint. How the official document came in the possession of the respondent No. 1 is for him to explain. A demarcation got conducted on an application filed by the respondent No. 1 by the revenue authority has been relied upon whereas the same has not been pleaded in the suit and the documents have been placed on record subsequently. In fact process for the same started after filing of suit. The communications so referred have not been addressed to the respondent No. 1. Apparently photocopy of the demarcation report dated 01.05.2019, as has been placed on record by respondent No. 1, does not bear the signature of Defence Estate Officer or Chief Executive Engineer of the Cantonment Board. 26. Learned court below has totally ignored the settled principle of law whereby even evidence beyond pleadings may not be relevant. But even at the stage of grant of interim relief, reliance is sought to be placed on the documents have not even been pleaded in the suit and came into existence after the filing of the suit that too on an application filed by respondent No. 1. Some of them are part of the official communications which need to be proved in evidence in case any party wishes to place reliance thereupon. 27. As far as stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 regarding withdrawal of some relief made in the suit is concerned, there is an application dated 27.05.2019 filed by the respondent No. 1 seeking certain correction in the prayer clause. However, that application has not yet been allowed as the same is pending. 28. 27. As far as stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 regarding withdrawal of some relief made in the suit is concerned, there is an application dated 27.05.2019 filed by the respondent No. 1 seeking certain correction in the prayer clause. However, that application has not yet been allowed as the same is pending. 28. In the case in hand, learned court below has granted permission to respondent No. 1 to raise construction on the land, ownership of which itself is being disputed by the appellants and respondent No. 2, claiming the same to be defence land. Any permission to raise construction thereon during the pendency of the suit will certainly prejudice the appellants. The main relief claimed is to restrain the appellants from interfering in the process of raising construction. The same has been granted at the interim stage without there being any material on record. 29. For the reasons mentioned above, I find merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly, accepted. Order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned court below is set aside. Application for interim injunction filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff is dismissed.