JUDGMENT 1. The instant first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the Judgment & Decree dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No. 09/2017 (59/2012) titled as ’Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.’, whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant herein seeking injunction was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the plaintiffappellant was in possession of his khatedari land of total 21 Khasras measuring 13 bigha 13 biswas i.e. 31291.25 square yards land. The description of the khasra numbers was mentioned in the plaint, which included disputed Khasra No. 207. The plaintiff further averred that in the above land, he got constructed the house for his residence, cattle shed and store house for agricultural purpose on the land ad-measuring 350 square yards. On 04.07.2012, the officials of the defendants came on the land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and asked to remove his construction within 3-4 days. The act of the defendants was against the law. The defendants were having no right to remove the construction raised by the plaintiff. Hence, he prayed to issue injunction against the defendants not to enter in the land of the plaintiff and evict him. He also sought injunction for restraining the defendants from demolishing the construction made by him. The defendants-respondents filed their written statement alleging that the plaintiff made construction on the land of Khasra No. 207, which was recorded as Banjar without permission of the competent authority in the year 2002. While denying the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint, the defendants prayed to dismiss the plaint of the plaintiff. The trial court framed total eight issues and after recording the evidence of both the parties, dismissed the suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2018. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, this first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant before this Court. 3. The notices were issued to the respondents-defendants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it was not in dispute that the land in question was recorded in the khatedari of the plaintiff. There was no requirement to take permission for construction from any authority. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it was not in dispute that the land in question was recorded in the khatedari of the plaintiff. There was no requirement to take permission for construction from any authority. Relying on the provisions of Sections 66 and 67 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (afterwards referred to as ’the Act of 1955’), learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff was having every right to construct his dwelling house etc. on his khatedari land. The disputed construction in the present case was on 350 square yard land. As per proviso to Section 67 of the Act of 1955, the plaintiff has right to construct over area not exceeding one-fiftieth of the total area of the holding. The construction in question did not exceed the limit. He further submits that the trial court committed error in rejecting the plaint. In the above circumstances, he has prayed that the present first appeal may be admitted. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents has submitted that the plaintiff did not come with clean hands. He nowhere mentioned that in which khasra number, he had raised the construction. During the cross-examination of the plaintiff, it emerged that the construction was raised on the land of Khasra No. 207. The alleged construction did not come in the category of improvement as defined in Section 5(19) of the Act of 1955. It was admitted that the construction was raised without previous permission. In cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that construction was of the commercial nature, which had already been demolished. In the above circumstances, he has prayed that this appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 7. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the court below, it reveals that khatedari rights of the plaintiff over the land in question in the present case are not in dispute. The dispute is regarding construction made by the plaintiff over his holding. In the plaint, plaintiff did not aver that in which khasra, the construction was raised. The plaintiff also did not disclose the year of the construction. He concealed the exact nature and boundaries of the construction made by him. The dispute is regarding construction made by the plaintiff over his holding. In the plaint, plaintiff did not aver that in which khasra, the construction was raised. The plaintiff also did not disclose the year of the construction. He concealed the exact nature and boundaries of the construction made by him. This fact is also not in dispute that construction was raised by the plaintiff without obtaining permission from revenue authority. This Court is in agreement with the view expressed by the trial court that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. During cross-examination of the plaintiff, he admitted that construction was made over land of Khasra No. 207. He specifically stated that 3 rooms which were demolished by the defendants, were situated on the land of Khasra No. 207. He also admitted that this construction was made after 2002. He also admitted that permission was not obtained by him from the government department. He also admitted in the cross-examination that passenger used to come in the disputed structure. He explained that since rooms were away, the occupation in it was not frequent. 8. After perusing the provisions of Sections 66 & 67 of the Act of 1955, it is clear that the plaintiff was required to obtain permission before raising the construction. The case of the present plaintiff does not come within the purview of proviso to Section 67 of the Act of 1955. As stated earlier, the plaintiff was required to describe the particulars regarding which, he sought injunction against the defendants. However, he intentionally concealed the essential particulars regarding the disputed constructions. After going through the cross-examination of the plaintiff, it is crystal clear that disputed construction was of commercial nature, which has already been demolished by the defendants-respondents. The plaintiff-appellant has not amended his plaint with a view to erect the construction already demolished. No case is made out in favour of the plaintiffappellant for issuance of any injunction against the defendants-respondents. 9. In view of the above discussion, the present first appeal is not fit for admission, hence, is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff-appellant may apply for seeking permission for construction as per law from the competent authority, who shall proceed in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above discussion, the present first appeal is not fit for admission, hence, is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. However, it is made clear that the plaintiff-appellant may apply for seeking permission for construction as per law from the competent authority, who shall proceed in accordance with law. No need to state that plaintiff is at liberty to seek remedy before the competent authority, if fresh cause of action arises in his favour.