The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in the context of granting temporary injunction. The judgment also emphasized that the grant or refusal of interim injunction determines the fate of a suit and must be approached with caution to ensure even-handed justice to both parties. The judgment also highlighted that an order of injunction is discretionary and should not be interfered with unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.

ORDER :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Petitioners, on the edifice of case set up, seek quashment of order dated 12th March 2018 passed by learned Munsiff Chadoora as also order dated 16th July 2018 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Budgam in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal bearing File No. 93/Appeal. Petitioners implore a direction in the name of parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property, with further direction to Trial Court to pass decree against defendants/respondents 2 & 3 and in favour of plaintiffs in view of admission made by them in their written statement filed before learned Trial Court.

2. The case set up by petitioner is that they have filed a civil suit titled Ghulam Mohammad Wani and another v. Ali Mohammad Ganie and others, before the court of learned Munsiff, Chadoora (for brevity "Trial Court") for grant of Decree for Declaration, Partition, Possession and Permanent Injunction. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 13th December 2017, directed parties to maintain status quo with regard to suit property. Learned Trial Court, however, by order dated 12th March 2018, dismissed interim application and vacated status quo order dated 13th December 2017. Dissatisfied therewith, petitioners preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Budgam (for short "Appellate Court"), which, however, has been vide order dated 16th July 2018 dismissed. It is this order of which petitioners are aggrieved, forcing them to knock at portals of this Court with writ petition on hand.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners has stated that learned Trial Court has overlooked the admission made by respondents 2 & 3 in their written statement. He states that even if petitioners were not in possession of any suit property and so-called mutation was only in the name of respondents, but in light of admission by majority of contesting respondents/defendants that petitioners are co-sharers and liable to be having share out of landed estate in question, learned Trial Court was to protect interests of petitioners till final disposal of suit. Since there were much apprehensions that respondents may change the nature of suit property, which prompted plaintiffs/petitioners to seek protection of their rights by way of ad interim relief, however, by virtue of impugned order dated 12th March 2018, learned Trial Court dismissed interim application and vacated status quo orders, which has caused prejudice to rights and interests of petitioners. He also avers that law on subject is very clear that mutation does not confer any ownership rights.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has insisted that learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to refuse to grant interim injunction for the reason that petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case and other two requirements of law for grant of temporary injunction have not been made out in favour of petitioners. He also insists that mutation of inheritance was attested way back in the year 1960 and since then respondents continue to be in possession of the property as its lawful owners and respondent No. 2 has already sold his share to strangers. Some portions of land has already been sold by respondent No. 1 and rest of properties are in his exclusive possession. Learned counsel also avers that petitioners have taken too long time to assert their right; as a sequel whereof doctrine of acquiescence would apply to the case of petitioners. He submits that writ petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

6. Glance of impugned orders reveals that the case of petitioners before learned Trial Court as well as before Appellate Court was that Sultan Ganie was owner of landed estate situated at Dharmbugh Tehsil B.K. Pora, who passed away s