The main legal point established is the need to satisfy the court with reference to three cardinal principles for the grant of injunctive relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.

JUDGMENT :

MA No.184/2014:

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Order dated 25th of August, 2014 passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Ganderbal (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) in the suit titled ‘Nazir Ahmad Bakshi & Ors. V. State of JK & Ors.’, thereby vacating the earlier Order of status quo dated 15th of July, 2014 passed in the interim relief application filed by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants herein alongside the main Suit.

2. The brief upshot of the facts relevant for determination of this appeal, as would emerge from the pleadings on record, is that the Appellants, way back in the year 2013, filed a Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction with respect to land measuring 04 Kanals covered under Survey No. 181 Min; as well as land measuring 04 Kanals falling under Survey No. 181 (03 Kanals and 18 Marlas) and Survey No. 182/1 (2 Marlas) in Mouza Sonamarg, Tehsil Kangan. In the said Suit, it was claimed by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants herein that they are the owners in possession of the aforesaid land having purchased the same by virtue of two sale deeds dated 17th of August, 1981 duly registered by the learned Sub Registrar, Ganderbal. It was alleged that the Defendants 4 and 5/ Respondents 4 and 5 herein, with a view to illegally grab the Suit land from the possession of the Plaintiffs/ Appellants, are trying to cause undue interference with regard to the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs/ Appellants over the Suit land. On 3rd of August, 2013, the Respondents 4 and 5 filed their Written Statement in opposition to the aforesaid Suit, wherein they strenuously denied the possession of the Plaintiffs/ Appellants over the Suit land. The Respondents 4 and 5 contended that the land in question was purchased by them in the year 1981 by virtue of sale deed and, as such, they are the lawful owners in possession of the same. On 11th of October, 2013, the Suit appears to have been dismissed in default vide Order dated 11th of October, 2013 and, ultimately, on the application of the Plaintiffs/ Appellants, the same was restored vide Order dated 28th of January, 2014. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs/ Appellants laid a motion before the learned trial Court stating therein that due to inadvertence the interlocutory application, filed alongside the main Suit seeking injunctive relief to restrain Respondents 4 and 5 from causing any interference in reference to possession and enjoyment of Suit property by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants till final disposal of the Suit, was not taken up for necessary proceedings after restoration of the Suit. Accordingly, the learned trial Court took up the interlocutory application and, after hearing the Counsel for the Plaintiffs/ Appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in terms of Order dated 15th of July, 2014, while issuing notice to the Respondents 4 and 5, who were set ex-parte at that point of time before the learned trial Court, directed the parties to maintain status quo vis-à-vis the Suit land on spot. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after finally hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on the interlocutory application filed by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants alongside the main Suit, in terms of Order dated 25th of August, 2014, while holding that the Plaintiffs/ Appellants could not establish existence of a prima facie case in their favour as well as having regard to the fact that the balance of convenience also tilted in favour of the Respondents 4 and 5, rejected the interlocutory application and vacated the earlier Order of status quo passed by it on 15th of July, 2014. It is this Order dated 25th of August, 2014 that has been assailed by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants herein before this Court through the medium of the instant appeal.

3. When this matter was taken up for consideration by this Court on the very motion hearing, i.e., on 13th of November, 2014, the Court, while issuing notice to the other side, directed for maintenance of