A temporary injunction should not be granted where the applicant has not shown that they will suffer irreparable injury and the balance of convenience favors the other party.

Judgement

A. MISRA, J.- This appeal has been preferred against an order granting temporary injunction restraining the appellants from withdrawing the compensation money awarded to their share in a land acquisition proceeding.

2. The facts, in brief, are that 1.294 acres of land were acquired by the State in 1952 in Land Acquisition Case No. 3 of 1952-53. In the course of the said proceeding, the Land Acquisition Collector made a reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge, Cuttack which was registered as Misc. Case No. 64 of 1956 (L.A.). In the said proceeding before the Land Acquisition Court, it was held that respondents Nos. 1 to 8 were entitled to one-third interest in the acquired property and the court passed orders apportioning the compensation awarded between the different parties. Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 filed T. S. No. 73 of 1968 to set aside the aforementioned award on grounds of fraud and claimed that they alone are entitled to the entire compensation money amounting to about Rs. 85,000/-. They also filed a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P. C. for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the present appellants from withdrawing the compensation money awarded to their share by the Land Acquisition Court. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed this prayer and issued a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from withdrawing their share of the compensation money till disposal of the suit. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

3. For the appellants, it is contended that in the circumstances proved, there is no valid ground for issue of a temporary injunction, particularly when they are prepared to furnish adequate security for the amount to be withdrawn, they will be put to considerable loss as the compensation money already in deposit will not earn any interest during the period payment is not made to them in accordance with the injunction order. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 8 contends that though the Land Acquisition Court has passed an award declaring the share to which the appellants are entitled, the said award having been brought about by fraud committed by the appellants, they should not be allowed to withdraw the amount, and in case such withdrawal is permitted, plaintiffs will be put to considerable hardship in recovering the same when ultimately they succeed in the suit. It is also argued that when the validity of the award is being challenged on grounds of fraud, it is necessary that the status quo as it was on the date of the suit should be maintained.

4. The well-settled principles which govern exercise of the discretion conferred under Order 39, R. 1, Civil P. C. in the grant of injunction are (1) the person seeking a temporary injunction must satisfy the Court that there is a serious question to be tried in the suit and that on the facts before the Court there is a probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for; (2) Court's interference is necessary to protect the applicant from the species of injury which is described as irreparable before his legal right can be established on trial and (3) the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it.

5. In the present case, there is no dispute that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Court apportioning the compensation amount between the respective parties has the force of a decree. No appeal was filed against the said decision of the Land Acquisition Court, and as such, so long it stands, the appellants are entitled to the share of money awarded to them. Plaintiffs in the title suit have sought to set aside the decision of the Land Acquisition Court on grounds of fraud. To succeed in such a suit, the onus necessarily is on the plaintiffs to establish positively the species of fraud on which the award of the Land Acquisition Court is sought to be