Before granting injunction, the court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff would sustain irreparable loss unless such injunction is granted.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Misra, J. - The plaintiff have filed this revision. They have filed O.S. No. 22/98 which is now pending in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basudevpur, for partition with claim u/s 4 of the Partition Act against defendant No. 1 and for permanent injunction against defendants 2 and 3. It is claimed that though there is no partition in respect of the disputed land, defendants 2 and 3 have purchased a part of the disputed land from defendant No 1. During pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed against defendants 2 and 3 seeking to restrain them from making any construction on portion of the disputed land purchased by them. Defendants 2 and 3 in their objection stated that they had already started their construction on the portion of land purchased by them and there was no justification for granting any injunction. The trial Court after hearing both the sides found that though there was prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, the balance of convenience was in favour of defendants 2 and 3. It was further found that no irreparable loss would be sustained by the plaintiffs in case injunction is refused. Misc. Appeal No. 23/98 having been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhadrak, the present Civil Revision has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners submitted that when a prima facie case had been found in favour of the plaintiffs, the Courts below should have granted injunction in the interest of justice.

3. Law is well settled that before granting injunction, a Court must be satisfied that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff; that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and further the plaintiff would sustain irreparable loss unless such injunction is granted. In the present case, though it can be said that there may be a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, the other two ingredients cannot be said to have been satisfied. The Courts below have referred to the fact that construction upto a particular level had been made. Stopping the construction at that stage may not be of any advantage to the plaintiffs, whereas the defendants are likely to suffer loss if construction is stopped. As such, the balance of convenience cannot be said to be in favour of the plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs are also not likely to suffer any irreparable loss as in case the plaintiffs succeed, appropriate direction can always be given by the trial Court for demolition of the structure and allowing the prayer u/s 4 of the Partition Act, or any other suitable relief. Both the Courts below have adverted to various facts and circumstances and come to conclusion. It cannot be said that the Courts below have acted beyond their jurisdiction or have exercised their jurisdiction with material irregularity. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision. It is made clear that the defendants cannot claim any particular equity merely because injunction is being refused and any construction made shall be subject to result of the suit.

5. The suit was filed in the year 1998. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute, it is necessary that the suit should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. It transpires that a Civil Revision is now pending before the Additional District Judge, Bhadrak. It is directed that after disposal of the said Civil Revision, the trial Court shall take steps to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the complete L.C.R.

6. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the Civil Revision is disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. The L.C.R. which had been called for shall be immediately sent back to the Additional District Judge, Bhadrak, to enable the Additional District Judge to dispose of Civil Revision No. 4 of 1999 pending before him. Thereaf