Advocates Appeared:
B.B.MOHANTY, R.K.MOHAPATRA, S.DAS GUPTA, S.P.Misra

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The court emphasized that an injunction is granted only if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, demonstrates that irreparable injury will occur if the injunction is not granted, and shows that the balance of convenience favors them (!) (!) .

2. The trial court initially granted an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or changing the character of the disputed land until the case was decided (!) .

3. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting the injunction because the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that irreparable loss would result without it, and the balance of convenience favored the defendants (!) (!) .

4. The appellate court highlighted that since the property was already in dispute and a suit was pending, the doctrine of lis pendens would prevent irreparable loss even if the property was alienated during the pendency of the case (!) (!) .

5. The court noted that if the defendants provide a written undertaking to restore possession and not claim any equity if the plaintiff succeeds, the risk of irreparable injury to the plaintiff would be mitigated (!) (!) .

6. The appellate court determined that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants, given their longstanding possession and prior constructions on the land, and thus, the injunction was unwarranted (!) (!) .

7. The appeal was allowed on condition that the defendants furnish an undertaking to deliver vacant possession upon the plaintiff's success, and any sale of the land should include a clause indicating it is subject to the outcome of the suit (!) (!) .

8. The court clarified that violation of these conditions could amount to contempt of court (!) .

9. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order, emphasizing that the circumstances did not justify granting an injunction and that the defendants' continued possession was to be respected until the final decision (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.