Mumbai Mar 30 PTI The statements made against Bollywood superstar Salman Khan by a neighbour appear to be supported by documentary evidence a civil court has said here The court last week refused interim relief to Khan who has filed a defamation case against his Panvel farmhouse neighbor Ketan Kakkad Additional Sessions Judge Anil Laddhad rejected Khans plea seeking an interim order barring Kakkad from making any further comments against him or his family members in connection with Khans farmhouse at Panvel in neighbouring Raigad district The detailed order became available on Wednesday Kakkad an NRI owns a plot on a hill next to Khans farmhouse Khans defamation suit alleged that Kakkad made defamatory comments against the actor in an interview to a YouTube channel Khans advocate Pradeep Gandhy argued that Kakkad made false disparaging and defamatory allegations in videos posts and tweets Kakkad had tried to purchase a plot of land next to Khans farmhouse but the transaction was cancelled by the authorities on the ground that it was illegal the lawyer told the court Kakkad then started making false accusations that the transaction was cancelled at the behest of Khan and his family Gandhy stated Advocates Abha Singh and Aditya Pratap appearing for Kakkad opposed the relief sought by Khan arguing that the statements revolved around facts about Khans property and could not amount to defamation Kakkad had purchased his land in 1996 He retired in 2014 and wanted to live there but could not access his land due to encumbrances caused by Salman Khan and his family the lawyers claimed The judge after examining the tweets and videos placed on record said that Khan did not explain how the innuendos in the tweets pertained to him There is documentary proof to substantiate the allegation about Khan restraining Kakkad from approaching his land the court noted As to the allegations that Salman committed encroachment and violated the Forest Act and Matheran EcoSensitive Notification Kakkad placed on record the applications made to the forest department and the collector along with show cause notices issued by the forest department the judge said The defendant Kakkad contended that he is a whistle-blower to the illegal acts done by the plaintiff Khan and he made imputations in public interest by taking reasonable precautions by producing documentary material in support of the same the judge noted Therefore at preliminary stageas the plaintiff failed to explain innuendo how it relates to him and the defendant raised the plea of justification which is prima facie supported by documentary evidence I am not inclined to grant an injunction to the plaintiff the court ruled PTI AVI KRK KRK