The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury to the plaintiff in the matter of grant of an ad-interim injunction.

Heard Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially for redressal of his grievances, petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, registered as Regular Suit No.645 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kadipur, District-Sultanpur.

3. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, in the said suit, petitioner moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The opposite party no.1/Civil Judge (J.D.), Kadipur, District-Sultanpur has issued a notice to the defendants to file their objections. Under the order of trial court, the learned Advocate Commissioner has submitted its report along with map on 7.12.2012 as contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition.

4. Further, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of grant of temporary injunction is fixed on 20.12.2012

5. In view of the above said factual background the question which immediately arises is that what principles should be followed by the Courts in the matter of grant of an ad-interim injunction. The answer is contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (1993) 3 SCC 161, a Bench of three Judges of Apex Court has held that:-

"It has been pointed out repeatedly that a party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right or course, grant of injunction is within the discretion of the court and such discretion is not to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary injection is, thus, to maintain the status quo. The Court grants such relief according to the legal principles- ex debito justitiae. Before any such order is passed the court must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and that the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him."

6. In the case of Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh. (1992) 1 SCC719a Bench of two Judge of the Apex Court held that the phrases "Prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss" are not rhetoric phrases for incantation but words of width and elasticity, intended to meet myriad situations presented by men's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances and should always be hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injury to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused.

7. In Woodroffe's Law Relating to Injunctions, 2nd revised and enlarged Edn., 1992, at page 56 in para 30.01, it is stated that:-

"An injunction will only be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation (that is a duty enforceable by law) existing in favour of the applicant who must have personal interest in the matter. In the first place, therefore, an interference by injunction is founded on the existence of a legal right, an applicant must be able to show a fair prima facie case in support of the title which he asserts."

8. In The Law Quarterly Review Vol. 109, page 432 (at p. 446), A.A.S. Zuckerman under the title "Mareva Injunctions and Security for Judgment in a Framework of Interlocutory Remedies" has stated:-

"The Court considering an application for an interlocutory injunction has four factors to consider; first, whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; secondly, whether this harm outweighs