A mandatory injunction can only be granted if the applicant establishes a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in their favor, and they will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.

P. K. MOHANTY, J.

( 1 ) THE defendants in a suit for injunction and account are the petitioners against the order of injunction passed by the trial Court restraining them from taking any coersive action and subsequently directing reconnection of electric and water supply to the suit scheduled properties.

( 2 ) THE opposite party, as plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants-petitioners from existing her from the quarters she occupied as a teacher and subsequently as a principal of the Stewart School, Cuttack, without due process of law till her entitlements and retirement dues have been cleared and for accounts with regard to her entitlements claiming that during a period of 41/2 years intermittently when she remained in charge of principal, she has not been paid a scale admissible to a principal and as per terms of her appointment, she is entitled to retain the quarter till all her dues are cleared. The defendants-petitioners on the other hand refute all the allegations and claims and according to them, all her dues have already been settled inasmuch as there is no contact or understanding whatsoever that she would occupy the premises meant for a working teacher after her retirement even in spite of notice to vacate. The opposite party has retired as superannuation on 17-4-95 and on her application, she was granted three annual extensions and her last term of extension having expired from 31-5-98, she has retired with effect from 31-6-98.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. on 15-10-98 and a copy of the petition was served on the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, who entered caveat. The defendants filed their objection/show cause on 16-10-98. A petition for ad interim order against the opp. party was filed, but as it appears, copy of the petition was not served on the opposite parties. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) First Court, Cuttack while directing the matter to be put up on 17-10-1998 for hearing, directed the opposite parties not to take any coercive step for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises till the next date. On 17-10-1998, the petitioner (opposite party in the injunction petition), filed an application for time, which was allowed and the matter was directed to be put up on 20-10-1998 for hearing. The interim order dated 16-10-1998 was directed to be continued till then. On 20-10-1998, both the parties were heard on the Misc. Case, but the orders were reserved for delivery on 7-10-1998. The previous order dated 16-10-1998 was allowed to be continued till then. On 22-10-1998, an advance petition was filed by the plaintiff-opp. party praying for a direction to the opp. parties to restore electricity and water supply. The petition was directed to be put up on 23-10-1998. The learned Civil Judge being absent, the matter was put up on 26-10-1998 and was adjourned to 27-10-1998 for filing of objection. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack by order dated 27-10-1998, has directed to restore the electricity and water connection charges to the premises of the petitioner immediately. Hence, the present Civil Revision.

( 4 ) SRI Bijan Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the Revision has been directed against the interim order of injunction dated 16-10-1998 and 27-10-1998 in the compelling circumstances since the learned Civil Judge reserved the order for more than 20 days and granted ad interim injunction without any tangent reasons whatsoever. It is his submission that the party which seeks an injunction must establish a prima facie case, a strong case for trial for mandatory injunction, the plaintiff being a mere trespasser having not even a samblence of right to continue in possession, far less of prima facie case or a strong case for trial, the orders are illegal and liable t