JUDGMENT :

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Latehar in Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2017 whereby the order dated 20.05.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Latehar in Original Suit No. 16 of 2016 dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC has been set aside with a direction to the defendant/petitioner not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/respondents upon the suit land.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/respondents filed Original Suit No.16 of 2016 claiming right, title, interest and possession over the suit land appertaining to plot No.288/1006, khata No.78/102 situated at Mouza-Baresarh measuring an area of 3.20 acres on the ground that the said land was initially settled to the defendant/petitioner vide Settlement Case No.269/55-56 but in his Patta, instead of village Baresarh, where the land was actually situated, it was written as village Mayapur and the defendant/petitioner subsequently transferred the same to Nasiban Bibi-the mother of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 through registered deed no.1289 dated 31.01.1974. Thereafter, Nasiban Bibi came in peaceful possession of the suit land and she got her name mutated for the same. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction alleging therein that the defendant/petitioner was trying to complete construction on portion of the suit land rapidly. The defendant/petitioner filed written statement-cum-counterclaim stating that the land under Mouza–Baresarh appertaining to Khata No.78/97-1202/N measuring an area of 6.74 acres comprising four plots was settled in his favour vide Settlement Case No. 269/55-56 and the said land was never transferred to Nasiban Bibi. He also denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and further averred that a collusive order of mutation was passed in favour of Nasiban Bibi. The Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Latehar vide order dated 20.05.2017 dismissed the petition for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs/respondents filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2017 before the learned Principal District Judge, Latehar who vide impugned order dated 07.05.2018 allowed the said appeal setting aside the order dated 20.05.2017 passed by the trial court. It is further submitted that the learned appellate court while allowing the petition for interim injunction failed to appreciate the legal principles laid down for the same. It is also submitted that the court below has failed to take into consideration the documents available on record in true perspective.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record including the impugned order dated 07.05.2018 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.03 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Latehar who reversed the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Latehar in Original Suit No. 16 of 2016 and allowed the appeal preferred by plaintiffs/respondents by granting interim injunction in the matter.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has reiterated the principle for granting interim temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. It has been held that the plaintiff is bound to establish that there exists a prima facie case as well as balance of convenience in his favour and if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is not allowed, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Only after establishing the said conditions, the court can grant interim injunction in the suit.

6. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sriman Narayan & Another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 760, the Hon’ble