An injunction must be grounded in established legal rights and satisfy three essential conditions; failure to do so renders the injunction order unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Appellants have preferred the present appeal assailing the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.1 of 2023 arising out RFA No.14 of 2023.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Appellant No.1 is the owner of the suit plot over which a two storied building with an outhouse at its road side has been situated. The Appellants kept a portion of first floor for their occupation and the remaining portion of the first floor along with the entire ground floor has been let out on monthly rent basis in favour of the different tenants including the husband of the respondent. The outhouse is the subject matter of the dispute in both the suit.

(ii) The rent agreement executed between the Appellants and the husband of the respondent clearly reveals about the relationship between land lord and tenants. The last agreement was executed on 7.4.2010 for a monthly rent of Rs.2710/- with effect from August, 2010 which is liable to be enhanced at 10%. Since, the husband of the Respondent discontinued on payment of rent from January, 2011 the Appellants were compelled to issue notice determining the tenancy, but instead of vacating the same the respondent filed CS No. 88/2011 with the plea that the Appellants have made an agreement with her for sale of the suit land as well as the house standing thereof and to receive the payment on instalment basis.

(iii) Both the suits were heard by the learned 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge Bhubaneswar. The learned 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge Bhubaneswar vide judgment dated 4.2.2023 decreed the CS No. 797/2011 in part thereby directing the defendants who is the husband of the present Respondent to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff i.e. Appellant No. 1 within 3 months, failing which he will be entitled to be recovered the same through the process of the court and the defendant is liable to pay Rs.2500/- from January 2011 till the date of actual payment. At the same time CS No. 88/2011 filed by the Respondent as plaintiff was dismissed on contest without cost.

(iv) Challenging the judgment and decree passed in CS No. 88/2011 the Appellants preferred RFA No. 14/2023 before the learned District Judge Khordha at Bhubaneswar and in the said RFA the Respondent filed IA No.1/2023 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the Appellants from interfering in the possession of the respondent and from creating any 3rd party interest till disposal of the appeal.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the Appellants has vehemently contended that the same suffers from patent illegality, perversity, and non-application of judicial mind.

(ii)The learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the preliminary issue of maintainability of the injunction application at the instance of a prospective purchaser, who, in law, possesses no right in rem over the property but only a contractual right in personam. Consequently, no order of status quo could have been validly passed at her behest.

(iii) The Court below has not adverted to, nor recorded any finding on, the three essential pre-requisites governing grant of interim injunction, viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury — thereby vitiating the order by reason of non-consideration of settled principles.

(iv) The learned Trial Court, in the judgment dated 04.02.2023, had rendered a clear finding that the Respondent and her husband were in occupation of the suit premises in the capacity of tenants, and t