The party seeking an injunction must prove a prima facie case to go for trial, and if failed, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not material.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Samba (hereinafter referred to be as 'the appellate Court'), whereby Civil Miscellaneous appeal titled, 'Vijay Kumar & Anr. v. Surinder Partap & Anr.' was allowed and the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Learned Additional Munsiff, Samba (hereinafter referred to be as 'the trial Court') in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, read with Section 151 CPC, was set aside.

2. The petitioners had filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents in respect of the land measuring 24 kanals 5 marlas comprising Khasra Nos. 136, 247, 248 min 249, 250, 204 situated at village Kathlai, District Samba on the ground that Respondent No. 3 being the attorney holder of other respondents had entered into an agreement to sell with them on 17.10.2018. Further, an amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs was paid to Respondent No. 3 by the petitioners and accordingly, the possession of the land was also delivered to them. As the respondents tried to occupy the suit property forcibly, the petitioners filed the suit for injunction against them and also filed an application for grant of interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The learned trial court, vide its order dated 01.05.2019 passed an ex parte interim order directing the parties to the suit to maintain the status quo with regard to the suit property.

3. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed their written statement, wherein they stated that they had never executed any power of attorney exclusively in favour of Respondent No. 3. Rather, they had executed power of attorney in favour of one Raman Sambyal S/o Satya Pal R/o Bagla Mohra Suchani and Defendant No. 3 in respect of the suit land, which was registered on 19.09.2015, but the same was cancelled on 24.10.2018, as such, Respondent No. 3 alone at all was not competent to execute any document. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 3 himself filed a suit against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and other persons, titled, Bodh Raj v. Vijay Kumar & Ors., which was pending before the learned Munsiff, Samba and subsequently the said suit was withdrawn by the Respondent No. 3 by virtue of a compromise deed dated 21.09.2019. It was also pleaded that once the respondent No.3 claimed to be in possession of the suit land on 13.02.2018, then how the petitioners could claim to be in possession of the suit land on 17.10.2018.

4. The leaned trial court after considering the pleadings and arguments of the parties vide its order dated 24.11.2020 modified the order dated 01.05.2019 (wrongly mentioned as order dated 22.02.2017 by the trial court) and restrained the respondents from alienating and creating any further charge during the pendency of the suit and from dispossessing the respondents from the suit land till the disposal of the suit. The said order was impugned by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through the medium of appeal and the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 07.12.2022 set aside said order passed by the learned trial court.

5. The petitioners have impugned the order passed by the learned Appellate Court before this Court on the ground that appellate court should have confined its decision to the questions raised in the pleadings and further that the appellate Court has not decided the appeal on the basis of three essential requirements for issuance of interim injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

6. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned appellate Court has decided the appeal all together on new grounds, which were never raised before the learned trial court and further that the learned appellate Court has not followed the three essential and settled principles of law for issuance of interim injunction while deciding the appeal.

7. Mr. Jagpaul Singh, lea