The main legal point established is the application of legal provisions to determine possession and the grant of interim injunction based on prima facie case and balance of convenience.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Kkan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for the petitioners and Sri Hari Om Singh, for contesting respondent-3.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Civil Judge (Senior Division) (respondent-2) dated 26.04.2014, granting ad-interim injunction, restraining the petitioners from interfering in possession of respondent-3 over the land in dispute during pendency of the suit and Additional District Judge (respondent-1) dated 30.05.2014, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, filed from the aforesaid order.

3. Ram Pal Verma (respondent-3) filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 49 of 2014), for permanent injunction, restraining Sandeep and others (the petitioners) from interfering with his possession over plot 410, consisting one room with khaprail roof, situated in village Bairampur Barawan, pargana Akbarpur, district Ambedkar Nagar. It has been stated in the plaint that the land in dispute was holding of Sabhapati and Patandeen sons of Durbali. Sabhapati died issueless and was inherited by his brother Patandeen. Patandeen also died and was inherited by his son Ram Pal Verma, (the plaintiff), who was owner in possession of the land in dispute. Sabhapati and Patandeen sons of Durbali, through a registered agreement dated 05.09.2000 granted licence to Moti Ram Verma son of Ram Bachan Verma, Narendra Kumar Verma son of Hari Ram Verma, residents of village Bharthuwa Saraiya, pargana Akbarpur, district Ambedkar Nagar, for using a portion of plot 410, shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map, for -2- establishing brick kiln. After completion of 10 years, the term of the licence dated 05.09.2000, Narendra Kumar Verma and others, stopped works brick kiln, over the land in dispute and handed over possession of it to Patandeen. The defendants, who are very influential persons, having high political approach in the locality, threatened the plaintiff to take forcible possession over the land in dispute, 7-8 days back and run brick kiln over it although the father of the plaintiff did not grant any licence to the defendants nor entered into any agreement with them, permitting to run brick kiln. In spite of the request of the plaintiff, for not giving illegal threats and not to try to take possession over the disputed land and run brick kiln, against his will, the defendants were not ready for any compromise outside the Court and they had finally refused for any compromise on 09.02.2014 as such the plaintiff was left with no alternative, except to file the suit. The plaintiff also filed an application for interim injunction along with the plaint, in which allegations made the plaint were repeated and he has stated that the plaintiff had prima facie case, balance of convenience was in his favour and in case, interim injunction is not granted, he would suffer grave and irreparable loss.

4. The petitioners filed an objection dated 04.03.2014 to the application for interim injunction, stating therein that suit was filed on false allegations concealing material facts. The plaintiff has no concern with the land in dispute nor he or his father were ever in possession of it from last 14-15 years. Plot 410 was recorded in the name of Sabhapati and Patandeen, who through a registered agreement dated 05.09.2000 gave it to Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma, for establishing brick kiln for a period of ten years. On the basis this agreement, brick kiln was established and functioned up to 30.08.2010, as admitted in the application for interim injunction. In this agreement, there is a clause for renewal of the lease after expiry of the period of ten years. Narendra Kumar Verma and others could not run brick kiln due to their economic problem as such with the consent of Patandeen, they sub-let the brick kiln to the defendants and took their expenses of establishing infrastructures of brick kiln, from the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants have constructed o