In a partition suit, the court may grant an injunction to protect the possession of a co-sharer during the pendency of the suit, considering factors such as prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury. However, the court may refuse to grant an injunction against one co-sharer at the instance of another, especially when it may further embitter their relationship and create complications.

P. C. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under O. 43, R. 1 of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') is directed against the order dated 19-8-1989 in M. J. C. No. 10/89 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bherhanpur. The aforesaid miscellaneous proceeding under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code arises out of Title Suit No. 6/89 pending in the same Court praying for partition and separate allotment of the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule properties consisting of houses, moveables and bank accounts.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in the aforesaid suit is the appellant in this appeal. Defendants 1 and 2 are his brothers and defendant No. 3 is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No. 4 is a partnership firm having defendant No. 3 and his three sons as partners. Defendant No. 5 is the wife of defendant No. 2. Defendants 6, 7 and 8 are the Nationalised Banks where money has been deposited in the names of the partnership and other members of the family. In the suit the plaintiff has prayed for partition of his 1/4th share in the suit properties for a declaration that the partnership firm has been dissolved since 1-4-1976 and for rendition of accounts of the joint family business and the partnership firm. In the application under O. 19, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code he prayed for restraining defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 from entering into the residential house of the plaintiff and also from disturbing the plaintiffs possession of the shop house in Venkateswar temple street where the plaintiff alleges to have been carrying on his individual business. At the initial stage the learned Subordinate Judge by an interim order directed status quo to be maintained, but at the final hearing the order of status quo was vacated and so also the injunction prayed for This appeal is directed against the said order.

( 3 ) THE background of filing of the present suit as stated by the plaintiff is as follows : in 1977 defendants 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 63 of 1977 against the present defendant No. 3 and the appellant for partition of the joint family properties, which was dismissed for default on 18-7-1980. Thereafter defendant No. 2 alone filed another suit (Title Suit No. 34 / 83) against the appellant, and present defendants 1 and 3 which was also not pursued and was dismissed on 2-11-1983 as not pressed. The present defendant No. 3 was residing with the appellant in one of the family houses, but during the absence of the appellant, he left the house with all his belongings and has been trying to sell away the joint family houses being under the evil advice of defendant No. 2 for which the present suit has been filed.

( 4 ) OUT of the suit properties described in Schedule 'a' , the plaintiff claims to be staying in the house in Marthapeta street described in item No. 1 of Schedule 'a' and carrying on his business in a shop house in Venkateswar temple street appertaining to item No. 2 of the Schedule 'a'. The plaintiff has alleged that defendant No. 2 has managed to obtain a registered deed of gift from defendant No. 3 in respect of the suit shop house in Venkateswar temple street (item No. 2 of Schedule 'a') where the plaintiff has been carrying on business and the defendants are presently planning to sell away other joint family properties and bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff from the residential house where he has been residing with his family. In the application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code the plaintiff alleged that as defendants 1 to 3 and 5 have become very much hostile and inimical to the plaintiff, they have been also trying to forcibly enter into the residential house where the plaintiff is living and to dispossess him therefrom. The plaintiff has similar apprehension in respect of the shop house which stands already gifted away in favour of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1, one of the brothers of the plaintiff, supported him in his counter filed in the aforesaid M. J. C. No. 10/89 admitting the pla