A strong prima facie case is required for obtaining a temporary injunction, and the balance of convenience is a crucial factor in deciding the grant of injunction.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. This First appeal is at the instant of the plaintiffs. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2006, passed By the learned Addl. District Judge (PIC), Manipur West in Judicial Misc. Case No. 47 of 2005. By the said order of the learned trial court has rejected the prayer of the temporary injunction of the plaintiffs.

2. I have heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri T. Rajendra, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. The other respondents, i.e., respondent Nos. 6 and 8 to 10 did not appeared despite notice.

3. Without delving the facts at length, suffice is to mention here that the appellants have instituted a suit praying for a decree of partition of the ancestral landed property and other consequential reliefs Along with the suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed praying for restraining the defendant No. 1/O.P No. 1 from making any new construction on the suit land shown in the schedule 'C'. The trial court was not inclined to grant ex parte injunction. Hence, notices were given to the opposite parties. The prayer for temporary injunction has been refused by the impugned order nearly after 3 (three) years of filing of the application.

4. From the impugned judgment and order I find that the prayer for temporary injunction has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have failed to made out a prima facie case. The learned trial judge has also observed that the petitioners have also failed to show the stage of new construction on the disputed plot of land.

5. Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the term prima facie case should not be construed in a narrow sense. In other words, it was the submission of the learned Counsel that if there is prima facie case for maintainability of the suit. It is also to be presumed that the plaintiffs are also having a prima facie case for the injunction. According to the learned Counsel since other criteria for granting injunction were not considered, it has to be presumed that the injunction has been refused only on one criteria and it is also not tenable in the eye of law. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has referred to the judgment of Kerala High Court given in the case of Vellakutty v. Karthyayani and Anr. AIR 1968 Ker. 179 and Judgment passed by the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur in the case of Kongbrailatpam Benimadhob Sharma v. Kongbrailatpam Madhsudon Sarma AIR 1969 kar 21.

6. In the aforesaid 2(two) judgments the relevant factors of granting injunction have been discussed. In the case of Manipur in addition to the criteria, like prima facie title to the property, likelihood of suffering irreparable injury and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs, an additional criterion that there is need to maintain status quo of the property, has also been added.

7. On other hand. Shri T. Rajendra, learned Counsel appearing for few respondents, submitted that all the legal heirs of the predecessor-in-interest of the suit property are possessing their respective land on the basis of the partition that effected in the year 1950. The learned Counsel also submitted that the alleged construction is not been done by the defendant No. 1 but it is being made by the opposite party No. 2, and that too on some other patta land. In this way, there are some factual disputes also regarding the site of construction.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that ordinarily injunction can be granted if the party, seeking such an older, is found in possession of the properly. In contrary situation, prayer of injunction is ordinarily refused. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel cited the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bruce v. Silva Raj and Ors..

9. I would like to make it clear that while considering an application for injunction, the court