The grant of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial discretion, and the court must consider the following factors in deciding whether to grant an injunction: (1) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (2) whether the balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff; and (3) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.

Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In Suit No. 21 of 1991, the plaintiff-applicant has prayed for declaration that it is owner of the building Chalet and is entitled to run the ECI. Chalet Day School through its Management Board and the defendants-non-applicants have no right, title or interest in running the school either directly or through anyone else and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-non-applicants, their servants or agents and all persons claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful administration of E C I. Chalet Day School by the plaintiff applicant and also from holding out that the defendants-non-applicants are in the management of the E C I. Chalet Day School, Shimla. Alongwith the Civil Suit, O.M F No. 114 of 1991 was filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 C. P. C by the plaintiff-applicant for restraining the defendants-non-applicants from interfering with its peaceful possession and management of E.C.I. Chalet Day School through its management board and Principal Mrs. D. P. Dass during the pendency of the suit

2. In the O M. P., this Court on 16-4-1991 issued notice and passed the following interim order?— "Present : Sh. K. D. Sood, Advocate, with Sh. Naresh Sood, Advocate, for the plaintiff-applicant. Notice to the defendants returnable on 29th April, 1991. I have heard Sh. K. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and gone through the plaint as well as the documents filed alongwith it. Prima fade, the plaintiff-society is in possession and management of E C.I. Chalet Day School through its Management Board and Principal Mrs, D F. Dass and has a right to continue as such. Therefore, the defendants are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and management of E CX Chalet Day School by the plaintiff till further orders. Dasti copy on usual terms."

3. The defendants-non-applicants have been served in the suit but have not filed their written statement. In the O.M.P., they have filed their reply and placed on record a number of documents to oppose it and have prayed that the ad-interim stay may be vacated. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4. This cannot be disputed that grant of temporary injunction is a matter of exercising discretion-judicial discretion by rightly appreciating the facts on record and applying true principles to those facts. The well known tests to be applied in issuing temporary injunction are :— (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case ; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plain-tiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for temporary injunction is disallowed.

5. Whether the plaintiff -applicant has optima facie case in its favour means whether from the allegations made in the plaint and other material on record, it is able to raise serious question(s) to be tried at the hearing and whether there is probability that the plaintiff-applicant is entitled to the relief claimed by it in the plaint. In view of the kind of declaration sought for by the plaintiff-applicant, it must prima facie show its title over the property in dispute but it cannot be the sole criterion for granting the interim injunction to it. The plaintiff-applicant must further show that prima facie it has a right to manage the E.CX Chalet Day School and, in fact, it has been managing it through its Management Board. Having shown this much, the other two tests would stand satisfied in favour of the plaintiff- applicant and against the defendants-non-applicants.

6. Keeping these guidelines in view, the respective case of the parties as put up in the plaint, application and reply to the application is to He examined. The documents placed on record by the parties are also to be scrutinised in order to find out whether these support the respective contentions of the parties.

7. As alleged in the plaint, the plaintiff-applicant is a Society registered under the Socie