To obtain interim injunction, a petitioner must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm; failure to satisfy these elements results in dismissal of the application.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 12.04.2022, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.II, Hamirpur, H.P., in CMA No. 465 of 2021, titled as Amar Singh vs. Ruchinder & Anr., in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC in Civil Suit No. 962 of 2021, was dismissed as also judgment dated 06.07.2022, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2022, titled as Amar Singh vs. Ruchinder & Anr., in terms whereof, the appeal preferred. by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Trial Court was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents appended alongwith the pleadings.

3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, who huas preferred a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction foor restraining the defendants from raising construction and changing the nature of the suit land. According to the petitioner, the suit land is joint of plaintiff-defendants and other co-sharers and is situated by the side of HPPWD Road Sulagwan to Jahu via Dohag and is a very valuable piece of land and defendants being headstrong and quarrelsome persons have started raising illegal and unauthorized construction thereupon. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC was also preferred by the petitioner seeking interim relief. In terms of order dated 12.04.2022, this application was rejected by the learned Trial Court and the appeal filed against the same by the petitioner also met with the same fate.

4. Having carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 12.04.2022 and the order passed by the District Judge in appeal, this Court finds no infirmity in either of the said adjudications.

5. Learned Trial Court refused to grant any interim protection to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had himself carried out construction over the land jointly owned by the parties and further he had not raised any objection when other co-sharers had raised construction of their residential houses thereupon. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents were already having a double storyed house consisting of 16 rooms on Jahu-Sarkaghat Road, was negated by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the same was not over the suit land. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents were carrying out construction over the best piece of the land was also rejected by the learned Trial Court by holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that construction being raised was detrimental or prejudicial to his interest or amounted to his ouster from the suit land. Learned trial Court also held that when the petitioner and other co-sharers were already having their residential houses over the suit land, then respondents, who were also co-sharers, otherwise also, could not be restrained from raising construction over the same, when there was no other construction carried out by the respondents over the suit land.

6. In appeal these findings were upheld by the learned Appellate Court buy holding that there were no averments in the plaint that the respondents were raising construction in excess of their share over the suit land and it was also not in dispute the that the share of defendant No.1 over the suit land was 1/4. Learned Appellate Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had not denied that he himself had carried out construction over the joint land and also observed that in fact he had avoided responding to such pleas, raised