The main legal point established is that the grant of temporary injunction requires the petitioner to establish a prima facie case, and in this case, the court found that the petitioners failed to do so.

M.R. Verma, J.—Since both these revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) arise out of the same judgment rendered in two consolidated Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Yog Raj and Mohinder Singh (petitioners in Civil Revision No. 364 of 2002) and Kultar Singh Dogra (petitioner in Civil Revision No. 325 of 2002) instituted two different suits against the respondents, claiming permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from raising any construction/installation of a tower for mobile telephone services adjoining the property owned by them and in case they succeed in raising the tower, for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove such tower and restoring the land to its original condition. As per the plaint, petitioner Yog Raj is owner in possession of land comprising Khasra No. 70, situate in Up Mohal, Hira Nagar, Mauza Jhaniara, Teh. and Distt. Hamirpur, to the extent of 1/2 share. Petitioner Mohinder Singh is owner in possession of Khasra No. 232/73, situate in the same village. Petitioner Kultar Singh Dogra is the owner in possession of land Khasra Nos. 230/72 and 234/ 74 situate in the aforesaid village. Land Khasra No. 62, situate in the aforesaid village, as per the revenue records, is owned and possessed by Rattan Singh, respondent in both the petitions which is in the close vicinity of the land owned by the petitioners. Respondents M/s. Bharti Telenet Ltd. and M/s. Airtel Ltd. have started construction of a tower for mobile telephone services on a corner of land khasra No. 62, which they have taken on lease from respondent Rattan Singh. The aforesaid land is within residential area and petitioner Yog Raj had purchased the land for the purpose of construction of a residential house. Petitioner Mohinder Singh had a residential double storeyed house on his land. Petitioner Kultar Singh Dogra has also his residential house over the land owned by him. There are other residential houses of various persons on the land adjacent to khasra No. 62, as specified in the site plans filed with the plaints. The Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur had allotted Government land in Dang Kowali for construction of the tower which was approved by the Municipal Council, Hamirpur. However, the respondents, other than respondent Rattan Singh, have started construction of tower over the land given to them by Rattan Singh for the purpose. The residents of the locality raised objections to the installation of the tower before the Deputy Commissioner but of no avail. It is further claimed that the proposed height of the tower under construction is 55 metres, which will become a permanent nuisance to the petitioners, their family members and other inhabitants of the area and will also endanger their lives and property and will also result in causing noise pollution, air pollution and other health hazards leading to loss of life and the environment/atmosphere will also be adversely affected. The land on which tower is being constructed is meant for residential construction. Even on this count, no industrial concern can be constructed thereon. Moreover, the construction of the tower is against the policy and rules framed by the Central Government prohibiting such installation within the residential and thickly populated areas. Hence the suits by the petitioners.

3. Alongwith the suits, the petitioners in each case, filed applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from raising the tower on the land khasra No. 62 till the disposal of the suits. Vide order dated 13.3.2002, as an ad interim measure, the trial Court directed maintaining of the status quo qua the installation of the tower.

4. Respondents M/s. Bharti Telenet Ltd. and M/s. Airtel Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the contesting respondents) c