The main legal point established in the judgment is the satisfaction of the requirements for granting a temporary injunction, including the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable injury to the plaintiff.

B.M. Lal, Bhagwan Din

1. SHRI H. S. Nigam appears for the appellant and SHRI Janardan Sahai appears for the respondent. They are :

2. THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 29.4.1992 passed in Application No. B. C. and Objection No. 12C in Original Suit No. 185 of 1992, Thakur Shri Radha Ramanji Maharaj v. State of U. P., by the Civil Judge, Mathura, whereby a temporary injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendant appellant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the land in dispute.

The short facts leading to this appeal are as under.

3. THE plaintiff respondent has brought an action against the defendant appellant claiming relief for permanent injunction. Simultaneously an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. was also filed contending that during pendency of the suit the defendant-appellant be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the land in question.

4. THE learned trial court having considered the rival contentions of the parties reached to the conclusion that the requirements for grant of temporary injunction, i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and in the event of refusal irreparable injury may be caused to the plaintiff have been proved by the plaintiff-respondent in its favour and accordingly injunction is granted.

No doubt, grant of injunction is an equitable relief, when the learned trial court has reached to the conclusion that the requirements for grant of injunction have been satisfied by the plaintiff-respondent and accordingly injunction is granted. In our opinion, the same is not liable to be interfered with until the appellant is able to show some material irregularities or illegalities in passing such order.

5. SINCE nothing has been brought on record or suggested that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity, therefore, in our opinion the impugned order is liable to be maintained.

6. THE appeal is accordingly dismissed.