The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury to the plaintiff in the grant of interim injunction.

Matter is taken in the revised cause list.

2. None present on behalf of respondent.

3. Heard Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

4. Facts in brief as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that for redressal of his grievances, petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jhansi.

5. In the said matter, the petitioner has moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC., rejected vide order dated 12.07.2004.

6. Aggrieved by the said fact, the petitioner filed an appeal (Appeal No. 79 of 2004) before appellate Court, dismissed by order dated 06.10.2006. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. On 21.12.2006, this Court has passed an interim/injunction order, relevant portion is quoted as under:-

"Till the next date of listing the defendatns no. 4 and 5 are restrained from raising any construction ont ehlandin question or from alienating it."

7. Thus, 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 Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3SCC 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."

8. In the case of Dalpat Kumar V. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 a 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.

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."

9. 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 any irreparable har