In property disputes, it is essential to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury. Fraud allegations should be thoroughly investigated, and the validity of property exchange must be ascertained on merits.

JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala Circuit Court at Nurpur, vide judgment dated 7.9.2016, passed in CMA No.7-N/XIV/10 of 2015, titled Nayyar Mineral Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surjeet Singh and others, whereby the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala Circuit Court at Nurpur, has affirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.II, Nurpur, District Kangra in CMA No.255 of 2012, in Civil Suit No.159 of 2012, dated 3.2.2015, may kindly be quashed and set aside and Civil Suit No.159 of 2012, titled Nayyar Mineral Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surjeet Singh, may kindly be heard and decided on merits."

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') maintained a suit for declaration through its Managing Director to the effect that plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.1532/904, measuring 0-20-84, hectares, situated in Mohal Pail, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') and respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') have no right, title or interest over the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff that in connivance with the Revenue Officials, defendants had fraudulently got a mutation attested behind his back and without knowledge of the plaintiff showing exchange of the suit land with the land denoted by Khasra No.1530/899, which is owned and possessed by the defendants. The defendants have also fraudently got exchange of land incorporated in the revenue record, but on the spot, the land denoted by Khasra No.1532/904, continues in possession of the plaintiff, whereas the land denoted by Khasra No.1530/899, is still under the possession of defendants No.1 to 3 and mutation No.12, which has been sanctioned by fraud has never been given affect at the spot. Defendants by taking undue advantage of the fraudulent entry trying to interfere with the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and to alienate the same, thereby causing grave prejudice to him. The plaintiff had never exchanged the suit land with the defendants and mutation No.12, dated 26.6.1993 had been sanctioned and attested at the back and without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had never authorize any person to exchange the suit land.

3. Defendants filed written statement as well as reply to the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby, they opposed the claim of the plaintiff. In written statement, preliminary objection regarding maintainability, no cause of action, estoppel and resjudicata have been taken. On merits, it is denied that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land and it is admitted that the land is owned and possessed by defendants No.1 to 3, as per the revenue record. It is also denied that defendants have wrongfully in connivance with the revenue officials got mutation of exchange of suit land attested in their favour. The plaintiff has also admitted that the exchange of land, while raising loan from the Bank, wherein he, is declared himself as owner-in-possession of the suit land and now, the plaintiff cannot wriggle out from such admission. Since, defendants No.1 to 3 are owners-inpossession of the suit land, as such, question of alleged threats on their part does not arise at all. The plaintiff has no prima facie case as well as balance of convenience in its favour.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the learned Court below dismissed the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vide order dated 3.2.2015, while holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of three ingredients in it