A petitioner seeking an interim injunction must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the application may be dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 07.12.2024, passed by learned Additional district Judge, Una in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 35 of 2024, whereby the appeal of respondent herein under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) has been allowed and the order dated 22.07.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P., in CMA No. 175-VI-24, has been set-aside.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 611 of 2024, pending adjudication before learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. He has sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent/defendant to the effect that the respondent/defendant be restrained from raising any construction over and changing the nature of land comprised in Khewat No. 45, Khatauni No. 85, Khasra No. 2 in Mohal Amoklan Sadoo, Sub Tehsil Bharwain, District Una, H.P. ( for short, “suit land”) till partition of the same.

3. As per petitioner/ plaintiff, the suit land is joint between the parties and respondent/defendant without getting the land partitioned had started extending illegal threat to raise construction on the suit land as per his wishes. It has been averred that the requests made by the plaintiff were ignored by defendant and the defendant had not only started collecting the construction material but had also started excavation over the suit land. It has also been submitted that the defendant has threatened to use the best portion of suit land by ousting the plaintiff .

4. Defendant is contesting the suit of the plaintiff and has filed written statement. Objections as to maintainability of suit, estoppel, locus-standi of plaintiff to file suit, valuation etc. have been taken. The plaintiff has also been accused of having not approached the Court with clean hands. As per defendant, the suit land already stood partitioned vide order dated 23.01.2015 of competent authority and the instrument of partition had also stood prepared and finalized. It has also been stated that the appeal filed against order of partition, in which plaintiff was one of the parties, also stood dismissed on account of non-prosecution.

5. Alongwith plaint, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking ad interim injunction against defendant. Learned Trial Court allowed the application of plaintiff for interim relief vide order dated 22.07.2024 and directed both the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land till final disposal of the suit.

6. Respondent/defendant assailed the aforesaid order by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code. Learned Additional District Judge, Una, vide impugned order has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of learned Trial Court. Consequently, the application of plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, has been dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents on record carefully.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff has contended that the learned Appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the well reasoned order of learned Trial Court. He submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff had satisfied the three way test and hence was entitled to interim injunction as prayed by him.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant has supported the order on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff had intentionally misrepresented the facts before the Court only for the purpose of obtaining interim order. It is contended that petitioner/plaintiff had willfully omitted to provide clear details about the partition proceedings with respect to suit land despite knowledge.

10. Noticeably, petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit on the premise that the suit land is joint and the respondent/defendant was trying to usurp best portion of the same wi