A plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

By way of instant petition, order passed by learned District Judge, Una on 24.10.2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.30/2024 has been assailed, whereby the order dated 10.06.2024, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Una in CMA No.1755/2023 has been set-aside in appeal of the defendants under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”).

2. Brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondents/defendants, which is pending on the files of learned Senior Civil Judge, Una, as Case No.132 of 2023. The petitioner/plaintiff has prayed for a decree in the following terms:

“It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from changing the existing nature and character by raising any sort of construction or otherwise taking exclusive possession by ousting the plaintiff from joint possession of land measuring 0-07-92 Hects, comprised of Khewat No.396 Khatauni No.574 Khasra No.3287 and 3294 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2018-2019 situated in Mohal Jakhera Sub Tehsil Mehatpur Basdehra, Tehsil and District Una, HP jointly owned and possessed by the parties along with other co-sharers till final partition of the suit land and in the alternative decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the malba of super structure so raised herein after during the pendency of the suit and to put the land in suit in its original position as it exist today may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs.”

3. The aforesaid relief has been claimed on the premise that the suit land is joint and un-partitioned between the plaintiff, defendants and other co-sharers. Though, the partition had been ordered by the Competent Authority, but a revision petition challenging the said order was pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. Defendant No.1 is stated to have purchased a share in the suit land from one of the co-sharers. It is also alleged that the defendants are threatening to utilize a valuable piece of suit land abutting the village link road for raising construction and to oust the plaintiff forcibly.

4. The defendants by way of written statement have taken a stand that the suit land was part of big chunk of land jointly owned and possessed by the parties and other co-sharers. It was pointed out that the plaintiff was holding specific possession over Khasra Nos.3291, 3298 and 3297 in excess of his share. The abadi of the plaintiff is alleged to be situated over Khasra Nos.3291 and 3298. As per defendants, they had raised construction up to the foundation level in January 2022 and the suit was filed at a belated stage to harass the defendants. In addition, various legal objections as to maintainability of suit, cause of action, estoppel etc. have also been taken.

5. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code was also filed by the plaintiff along with the suit, seeking interim injunction against the defendants. Learned trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff vide order dated 10.06.2024 by directing both the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, construction and possession over the suit land.

6. The defendants assailed the order passed by the learned trial Court by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code. Learned District Judge, Una by impugned order has allowed the appeal of defendants and the application of plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been ordered to be dismissed after setting aside the order of learned trial Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record.

8. The suit land, as described by the plaintiff in the plaint, is comprised in Khewat No.396, Khatauni No.574, Khasra Nos.3287 and 3294, measuring 0-07-92 hectares. The defendants have taken an objection that the joint land between the parties is mu