Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and Sri S.P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the defendant- respondents.

2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed against judgement and order dated 31.08.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, court no.9 Varanasi in Original Suit No.1174 of 2014 (Smt. Sarita Maharishi vs. Ashok Kumar Mishra and another), whereby trial court has rejected interim injunction Application 6-C after contest between the parties.

3. The story, as reflected from perusal of the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned order reveals that the plaintiff should not be dispossessed of the property shown at Scheduled- A appended to the plaint, and she should not be dispossessed and her possession should be protected and shop in question should not be alienated/altered in its shape.

4. The plaintiff moved interim injunction application for restraining defendant- opposite parties, whereupon, application was contested by the defendant by filing objection and after considering the case in its entirety and particularly on the anvil of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss specific finding was recorded against the plaintiff- appellant. Consequently, the interim injunction application 6-C was refused/rejected, which order counted for preferring this appeal before this Court by the appellant.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that in this case the plaintiff was in possession of the shop in question as described in Scheduled A appended to the Original Suit and she can enjoy exclusive right to the exclusion of all others by virtue of the agreement entered into between both the parties on 22.6.2011. It is an admitted fact that the overall transaction was agreed upon for payment of 17,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- were taken as advance money, thereafter, more money was paid in compliance of the aforesaid agreement and at that point of time when the plaintiff and the defendant were required to act in compliance of the terms of the aforesaid agreement and to execute sale-deed in question for the shop, the defendant refused to do the same, which caused great inconvenience and wrongful loss to the plaintiff. In case, the possession of the plaintiff is not protected, the interest of the plaintiff will be jeopardized and she can be ousted by illegal means by the defendants because nothing as per law will prevail upon them and the plaintiff will be left with no option lose her livelihood, which in turn would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant- opposite parties has supported the impugned order on ground that the plaintiff failed to prove her case and was unable to establish prima facie case as is reflected from the language and reasoning of the order impugned under the facts and circumstances of the case. Order impugned is not sustainable.

7. Considered the rival submissions and also perused the certified copy of the impugned order dated 31.8.2015 and the record learned trial Judge was seized of the three principles essential for deciding the interim injunction application based on the touch stone of prima facie case- balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The plaintiff was required to prove at least prima facie case, which prima facie case was asserted to be in the shape of possession of the shop in question- the subject matter of the case. The trial Judge did not record any specific findings because the agreement dated 22.6.2011 itself stipulated that this agreement to sale is being entered into without handing over possession to the plaintiff. That way the factual assertion so made regarding possession of the shop by the plaintiff is required to be proved by her by cogent evidence. Not less than that alone would work. Here the plaintiff failed to estalish prima facie case as per her assertion regarding possession of the shop in question.

8. Consequently, the learn