1. Appellants herein filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from committing trespass into the suit property. They also filed I. A. No. 139 of 1984 seeking an order of temporary injunction. The court originally allowed the injunction application. However, this court in CMA. Nos. 68 and 73 of 1985 set aside the order and remanded the injunction application for fresh consideration. After remand the court below heard the parties and dismissed the injunction application. This order is now challenged by the plaintiffs.

2. The court below has dismissed the injunction application on the ground that plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case of possession. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the correct approach is not to find out whether the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case; the correct approach is to find out whether there is a bonafide contention between the parties or a serious question to be tried. According to learned counsel, there is a bonafide contention between the parties and a serious question to be tried and therefore an order of injunction should have been passed. In support of this argument, learned counsel has strongly