By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by learned Munsiff, Titabar in Misc. (J) Case No. 3/2015 whereby the learned court directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land involved in Title Execution No. 6/2014 the schedule of which is furnished below:-

“An area of land measuring 01 (one) Locha covered by Dag No. 1420 of P.P. No. 18 of under Amguri Kharikatia Mouza, Titabor Town out of land measuring an area of 05 (Five) Lochas of land having one room out of two rooms standing on the said 01 Locha land which is bounded by:

East	Anis Ali’s Bakery Shop
West	House of Munilal Sahu
North	Dhudor Ali
South	House of Decree Holder

In the impugned order dated 22.01.2015, the learned Executing court has observed that petitioners of the said Misc. (J) case who is the sole opposite party in the present proceeding, has made out a strong prima facie case to go for trial and that balance of convenience lies in his favour. According to the learned Executing Court, if the prayer of the petitioners before him for granting status quo with respect to the land is not granted, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. According to Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners herein, the aforesaid order is vitiated by jurisdictional error as the basic principles on which a prohibitory injunction of such nature has to be passed, have not been followed in the instant case. Prohibitory injunction is granted under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by way of supplemental proceeding under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the basic ingredients on which an order in the nature of injunction is passed remains the same. This means that before passing an order of prohibitory injunction, the court is duty bound to satisfy itself that the petitioner has a strong prima facie case for getting injunction, that the balance convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and that if the order, as prayed for, is not granted, the same would give rise to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. In appropriate case, element of public interest is also a guiding factor for the purpose of granting interim prohibitory injunction whether under Order XXXIX or under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned court, in the case in hand, has not discussed as to how the opposite party herein has a strong prima facie case for getting an injunction order, Mr. MU Mahmud argued.

2. To understand the basic point for adjudication in the present case, it is necessary to have a view of the background facts of the dispute. The sole opposite party, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 13/1985 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1 at Jorhat praying for a decree for declaration of his right, title and interest and recovery of possession by evicting the defendants therein from the suit land measuring 5 lechas covered by Dag No. 1420 out of 10 lechas of land of the said Dag of P.P. No. 18 of Titabar Town, Amguri Kharikatia mouza. In the said case the plaintiff also made a prayer for eviction of 8 (eight) defendants alleging them to be trespassers. The learned trial court by judgment and decree dated 22.11.1988 decreed the suit against which the defendants preferred title appeal No. 1/1989 in the court of learned Civil Judge at Jorhat. The learned first appellate court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court by his judgment and decree dated 18.01.1996. Upon remand, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit by his judgment and decree dated 22.11.1996. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred title appeal No. 2/1997 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Jorhat and the same w