The Court's discretion in granting temporary injunction is based on the satisfaction of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury to the party seeking the injunction.

A.M. Saikia, J.

1. The Title Suit being T.S. No. 10/04 along with an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "C.P.C.") being registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 4/04 was instituted by the appellants as plaintiffs against the respondents arraying them as party defendants for a decree of declaration of their right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit land with a further prayer for a decree for cancellation of a Sale Deed No. 9109 dated 1-11-03 which was allegedly executed illegally and fraudulently by the defendants/Respondents Nos. 2 to 13 in favour of the defendant/respondent No. 1. Initially, the learned trial Court, on the application seeking temporary injunction, issuing notice upon the respondents, passed, as an interim measure, the order of status quo in favour of the appellants on 30-1-04. After the appearance of the parties i.e., the respondents by filing written objection and upon hearing the learned Counsel representing both the parties, the learned trial Court by its order dated 15-7-04 dismissed the Misc. Case (J) No. 4/04 holding that the appellants had no prima facie case to go for trial etc. and thereby ad interim order of status quo dated 30-1-04 was vacated.

2. In this appeal, the aforesaid order dated 15-7-04 has been challenged solely on the ground of perversity. It is pleaded that the learned trial Court's finding was precisely based on the photocopy of the Jamabandi filed by the appellants observing that since in 'Entry (Cha)' of the Jamabandi showed that Umesh and Balindra sold a total plot of land measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 14 Lechas to Bharpur, Jalil Seikh, Bhehua, Khalisa Seikh and Asan Ali, without prejudice to the merit of the main suit, it was held that if the appellants had have any land in their share, the same was to the extent of only 2 Katha 3 1/2 Lechas when in fact such 'Entry (Cha)' of the Jamabandi does not indicate anywhere any such area of the land measuring 7 Bighas 1 Katha 14 Lechas so as to make the shares of the appellants to the extent of 2 Kathas 3 1/2 Lechas save and except the remark that 3 Bighas of land under New Dag No. 571 was mutated in the names of Bhehue Seikh and Khalisa Sheikh along with Umesh, Balindra and Chandra when 1 Bigha 1 Katha 14 Lechas under Dag No. 571 in the name of Hasan Ali.

3. Heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Medhi has strenuously argued that the ad interim order of status quo passed on 30-1-04 was vacated by the impugned order by the learned trial court most mechanically and without any application of judicious mind and the same is apparent and manifest on the face of the order itself. The finding on 'Entry (Cha)', as has been noticed above, does not find support from 'Entry (Cha)' of the Jamabandi itself and accordingly the rejection of the prayer of temporary injunction without proper perusal and consideration of the documents placed on record has resulted in miscarriage of justice for which the appellants have suffered irreparable loss and injury. According to Medhi, the appellants have made out a strong prima facie case for granting interim injunction inasmuch as they challenged the Sale Deed that was executed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 13 in favour of the respondent No. 1 in collusion with the revenue authority to deprive the appellants from their rightful shares and ownership over the suit land which they have inherited from their ancestors. The learned Court has also failed to take into account the irreparable loss and injury suffered by the appellants by such rejection of the prayer for temporary injunction because the respondents have started the construction work to raise huge structure over the suit land for their commercial activities and if such construction is not stopped and is allowed to be continued, the same shall further lead to multiplicity of the