In the presence of a genuine title dispute, the court emphasized the need to maintain status-quo and pass an injunction order non-injurious to both parties.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against dated 2. 5. 2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), saharanpur in Original Suit No. 161 of 2005, Zakir Hasan and Ors. v. U. P. Power Corporation ltd. and Ors.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff respondents filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant appellants with these allegations that the property described in Schedule A and B of the plaint shown by letters A E F B in the plaint map were originally owned by Chaudhary Shyam Singh son of Choudhary Asha Ram. Shyam Singh sold these properties to Sardar Jagjeet Singh son of Sardar Anoop Singh vide registered sale-deed dated 5. 12. 1967. Sardar Jagjeet Singh sold the property described in Schedule A to plantiff No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 10. 10. 2002 executed by his general attorney Abbas Husain and put plaintiff No. l in possession of the above property. Plaintiff No. 1 constructed boundary wall towards west of this land which is shown by red line in the plaint map. Sardar Jagjeet Singh also sold the property described in Schedule B to plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 vide registered sale deed dated 13. 6. 2002 through his general attorney Abbas Husain. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 arc in possession of this property. The defendants have got no concern with this property. There is eight feet wide passage towards west of these properties described in Schedule A and B and thereafter there are quarters of Hydle Department. Plaintiff No. l had also purchased the property shown by letters D E F C in the plaint map vide registered sale deed dated 10. 10. 2002 executed by Sardar Jagjeet Singh through his general attorney Sri Abbas Husain and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 had also purchased the property shown by letters A B C D in the plaint map from Sardar Jagjeet singh through his general attorney Sri Abbas Husain vide registered sale deed dated 13. 6. 2002. In December, 2002 the plaintiffs wanted to construct a boundary wall from A to E towards south of the properties shown by letters D E F C Y A B C D. At that time the defendants employees obstructed them from doing so. Then the plaintiffs filed original suit No. 76 of 2003, Munawar khan and Ors. v. U. P. State Power Corporation, in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)Saharanpur and also prayed for interim injunction, and after hearing both the parties the IInd addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed ail order on 8. 2. 05 restraining the defendants from causing any interference in construction of the boundary wall as well as other constructions on the disputed land. Aggrieved with the above order the defendants filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2005 in the court of the District Judge, and in that appeal, the District Judge passed an order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo. There was no dispute in that suit in respect of the properties described in Schedule A and B of the plaint but the defendants started to threat that they would not permit the plaintiffs to raise constructions on the property specified in both the schedules and will also demolish their boundary wall and will occupy the land. They also started to demolish the boundary wall. Then the plaintiffs filed this suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from causing any jnterference in digging the foundation and construction of the boundary wall and other constructions in the disputed land specified in schedule A and B. The plaintiffs also prayed for interim injunction vide their application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. They filed the affidavit of Zakir Hasan in support of this application. Photostat copies of the sale deeds executed by Sri Abbas Husain as general attorney of Sardar Jagjeet Singh in favour of the plaintiffs as well as photostat copies of Khewat and khasra and photostat copy or the record of original suit No. 76 of 2003 were annexed with the aforesaid affidavit.

( 3 ) THE defendant appellants filed a joint written s