To obtain a temporary injunction, a party must provide clear prima facie evidence of ownership, demonstrate balance of convenience, and show that without relief, irreparable harm will occur.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.C.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. D.Mahapatra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and Mr. D.R.Bhokta, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 11 & 12.

2. Present CMP is directed against judgment dated 20^th March 2025 of learned Additional District Judge, Nabarangpur passed in FAO No.05 of 2023, wherein the First Appellate Court has reversed the direction of learned Trial Court to maintain status-quo over suit schedule-B properties under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC.

3. Present Petitioner is the Plaintiff, who filed C.S. No.45 of 2022 praying for partition in respect of suit schedule-B properties and to declare the registered sale deeds dated 18^th March 2011 and 17^th November 2017 in favour of Defendants No.23 to 31 as null and void, along with other consequential reliefs. The case of the Plaintiff is that he purchased Ac.03.70 decimals out of Ac.05.34 decimals in Sabak Plot No.40 from his vendor Gopinath Tripathy who purchased the entire Ac.5.34 decimals from Krushna Chandra Tripathy. It is further stated that Late Sadasiva Tripathy, Narayan Tripathy and Krushna Chandra Tripathy were three brothers who got 1/3^rd share each over the entire property in Sabak Plot No.40 in Sabak Khata No.61 measuring Ac.16.02 decimals, and Krushna Ch.Tripathy sold his entire share extending Ac.5.34 decimals to Gopinath, the vendor of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff purchased the land measuring Ac.3.70 decimals by virtue of sale deed dated 11^th March 1981. But subsequently the successors of Narayan Tripathy could manage to record some portions of said land fell into the share of Krushna Ch.Tripathy in their name and sold it to present Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and 11 & 12. Present Opposite Parties 1 to 4 are Defendants No.23, 24, 25 and 30, whereas present Opposite Parties 11 & 12 are Defendants No.28 & 29 in the suit.

4. The Plaintiff while pressing his case before the Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, submitted that present Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and 11 & 12 by virtue of the illegal sale deed are creating disturbance with possession of the Plaintiff in respect of his property purchased. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that these Defendants who purchased their land from the successors of Narayan Tripathy could not gain any right title interest over the property allegedly purchased by them since the successors of Narayan Tripathy cannot claim any share fell under Krushna Chandra. According to the Plaintiff a share extending Ac.05.34 decimals under Sabak Plot No.40 is admittedly fell into the share of Krushna Chandra Tripathy exclusively to possess such extent of land which was subsequently sold to Gopinath, the vendor of the Plaintiff.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and 11 & 12 that the direction of the learned Trial Court to maintain status- quo over entire land extending Ac.5.34 decimals without having the right of the Plaintiff over the same entirely, is definitely an illegal order and further when the Plaintiff is unable to identify his extent of land measuring Ac.3.70 decimals with proper boundaries and the Plaintiff has failed to establish his possession prima facie thereon, the learned Trial Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order of status-quo in respect of entire land extending Ac.05.34 decimals. As such, the First Appellate Court has rightly interfered with the same to set aside the order of the Trial Court.

6. It is no more res-integra that in order to maintain temporary injunction in respect of the suit property three golden principles viz, prima facie case, balanc