The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove exclusive possession and a prima facie case for the grant of interim injunction in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this civil revision petition is for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, in a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, praying for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction qua the suit property, was dismissed as well as the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the lower appellate Court, vide which appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the aforesaid order of the Civil Court, was also dismissed.

2. The operative part of the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Civil Judge reads as under: -

"...I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have gone through the contents of documents on record carefully.

The plaintiff has requested to be granted an interim injunction claiming to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit property along with the performa defendant. Here, a reference must be made to sale deed bearing vasika No.1005 dated 13.10.2017 and 1253 dated 27.05.2016 vide which, the plaintiff, performa defendant had purchased the suit property. A bare reading of both the sale deeds shows that the plaintiff, performa defendant were sold only a share in the suit property. No specific portion of the suit property was ever sold to them. Mutations bearing No.864 dated 21.02.2018, 830 dated 13.07.2016 and 863 dated 21.02.2018 have also been perused which clearly show that only the share of the vendor had been sold to the plaintiff and performa defendant. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff and performa defendant are not in exclusive possession over any portion of the suit property and have failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour.

It stands well established that in order to be granted the relief of interim injunction, it is incumbent upon the applicant to establish the following essentials:-

(a) prima facie case,

(b) balance of convenience,

(c) irreparable loss

As the prima facie case has not been made out, the other two ingredients need not be gone into. Hence, the application for the grant of interim injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. It is clarified that nothing mentioned herein shall be deemed to be the opinion of this Court on the merits of the case."

The operative part of the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the lower appellate Court reads as under: -

"...As per the pleadings of the parties, the appellant along with the performa respondents had claimed themselves to be owner in possession of land measuring 4 kanal 19 marlas vide sale deeds No.1005 dated 13.10.2017 in favour of appellant and sale deeds No.1004 dated 13.10.2017 and 1253 dated 27.5.2016 in favour of performa respondents, whereas, contesting respondent No.1 has claimed himself to be exclusive owner in possession over the land measuring nine marlas vide registered sale deed No.1295 dated 8.6.2009. The fact that Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh is the common vendor of both the parties is not disputed. The contesting respondent No.1 in his written statement has specifically pleaded that the vendors of the appellant and performa respondent No.2 had purchased some share of joint land comprised in Khewat No.136, Khatoni No.138, Rect. No.31, Killa No.11/2, Khewat No.139, Khatoni No.141, Rect. No.31 from Harvinder Pal Singh. Both the parties had placed on record copies of their respective sale deeds to prove their ownership and possession over respective lands purchased by them. Learned lower court after hearing the parties to the suit in the impugned order has observed that the appellant and performa respondent had purchased only a share in the suit property and not a specific portion. The court has further observed that as appellant and performa respondents are not exclusive owners in possession over any portion of the suit property and thus no prima facie case is made out in their favour and hence, dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

The appell