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. 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