The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and settled possession in granting or vacating interim injunctions under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Udhampur (‘the appellate Court’ for short), whereby the appeal filed against order dated 06.07.2020 passed by learned Munsiff (District Judicial Mobile), Udhampur (‘the trial Court’ for short) in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been allowed, the impugned order therein has been set aside and the petitioners/respondents have been restrained from causing any interference or obstruction in raising any sort of construction including the partition wall by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. It appears that the respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the petitioners/defendants before the leaned trial Court seeking a mandatory injunction to handover the vacant possession of a piece of land measuring 65 feet x 78 feet 6 inches falling in khasra No.207 (new) and 73(old)situated at Sui, Udhampur, after removing malba of a house constructed over the said land. A further permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff over land measuring 01 kanal comprised in aforesaid khasra number and in obstructing respondent/plaintiff from raising construction on the said land was also sought. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiff seeking an interim injunction against the petitioners/defendants.

3. After completion of the pleadings, the learned trial Court decided the interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in terms of order dated 06.07.2020 whereby an ex parte interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent was vacated by holding that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour.

4. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the respondent/plaintiff by way of an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. Vide impugned order, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court.While doing so, the learned Appellate Court concluded that the respondent/plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour and that balance of convenience also lies in his favour. Accordingly, the petitioners/defendants have been restrained from causing interference or causing any obstruction in the way of respondent/plaintiff’s raising any sort of construction including the construction of a partition wall. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court in the present petition.

5. The petitioners/defendants have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has not referred to the material that was available before the said Court and the trial Court while passing the impugned order. It has been contended that while passing the impugned order, learned appellate Court has virtually granted part of the final relief in favour of the respondent/plaintiff at interim stage itself. It has been further contended that the petitioners/defendants are admittedly in possession of part of the suit property on which they have constructed a house, therefore, at this stage, they had a prima facie defence to the claim of defendant/plaintiff, but the same has not been considered by the learned appellate Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including record of the trial Court.

7. Before coming to the grounds of challenge, it would apt to briefly state the cases set up by the parties before the trial Court.

8. As per the case of the defendant/plaintiffs, they had purchased the suit land measuring 1 kanal comprised in khasra No.207 (new)and 73(old)new by virtue of a sale deed dated 05.05.2000.It has been pleaded by the defendant/plaintiffs before that trial Court that petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 happen to be his co-brother and sister-in-law a