JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J.

This revision is directed against the Order dated 03.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Mise. Appeal, as well as the Order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned trial Court, dismissing the application for grant of interim-injunction, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, CPC in a Civil Suit No. 284 of 2021 titled 'Sarabjit Paul Singh vs. Devki Nandan and others'.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner instituted a civil suit (Annexure P-3) for declaration to the effect that he has become the owner in possession by way of adverse possession of the suit property, as detailed in the plaint and correction of revenue entries in his name by deleting the names of respondents No.l to 4 and ignoring the sale deed executed by respondent No.3 and 4 in favour of respondent No.l and 2 and equitable mortgage deed dated 21.05.2018 executed by respondents No.l and 2 in favour of respondent No.5-Bank, with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, also filed an application (Annexure P-4) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to restrain the respondents (defendants before the learned trial Court) from interfering in his lawful and peaceful possession over the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

3. Learned counsel argues that the respondents No.l and 2 by filing a written statement and counter claim for possession of the suit property, implicitly acknowledges the petitioner's possession on the suit property. The learned counsel contends that learned Courts below arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's claim without considering the factual circumstances. The Courts based their decisions on the premise that an injunction cannot be granted against the true owner and that plea of adverse possession can be used only as a defence, not as a claim. This stance directly contradicts the observations made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in 'Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others' 2019 (8) SCC 729.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Appellate Court has also observed that documentary evidence reveals the possession of the plaintiff on the suit property. Further, learned counsel states that even a trespasser in peaceful and settled possession of a property is entitled to protection of law and can seek injunction against a true owner and his possession can only be disturbed through legal course. In support of his arguments, he referred to the authority 'Rome Gowda (D) by LRs vs. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another' 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 519 and 'Puran Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab, 1974 (4) SCC 518. Despite the above settled position of law, learned Courts below erred in declining the relief to the plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel further submits that possession of the plaintiff in the suit property is since 1985 and he has constructed a building thereon besides having valid documentary proof like electricity bills, Aadhaar Card etc, constituting the three basic ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss; if grant of interim injunction in his favour is declined protecting his long settled possession over the suit property. It is urged that learned Courts below failed to appreciate the factual as well as legal position of law and materially erred in dismissing the application of the plaintiff for grant of interim injunction. A prayer is made to set aside the impugned orders and to allow the present revision petition by accepting his application for grant of interim injunction.

6. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.l supporting the orders, stated that petitioner failed to establish the existence of three basic ingredients (ibid) required for grant of interim injunction. Learned counsel contends that, per the pleaded case of the petitioner, Swaran Kaur was owner of the suit property, having purchased the same from Bakshish Singh, resident of v