The grant of an ad interim injunction is a discretionary power of the court, which is to be exercised on the basis of the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

( 1 ) THE defendants are aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial court disposing of the prayer made by plaintiffs for grant of ad interim injunction whereby the defendant/appellants have been temporarily restrained from interfering with the use, enjoyment and possession of the suit property by the plaintiff/respondents and also from making its allotment and delivery of possession to anyone else.

( 2 ) THE suit property consists of 47 Bighas 10 Biswas of land with superstructures in the nature of the factory building, go-downs, residential quarters, offices, well etc. and situated at Gospura, Birlanagar locality of city of Gwalior. The plaintiffs have narrated a long history of title alleging that they are in possession of the property and the authorities of the State were taking steps to strike off their names from the land records and were also attempting at their dispossession. It is also alleged that Act No. 15 of 1984, namely, Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetron Ke Bhumiheen Vyakti (Pattadharit Adhikaron Ke Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984, though came into force, yet was not applicable to "the suit property and still the defendant No. 4, namely, the Competent Authority under the Act had moved to make allotment of land in favour of others, casting a cloud on the title and rights of the plaintiffs and also causing apprehension of disturbance of possession to them. The plaintiffs seek a declaration of their title with an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and making allotment of the land to others. An ad interim injunction in similar terms has also been prayed for.

( 3 ) THE defendants in their written statement, as also in reply to the application for grant of temporary injunction, have denied the case of the plaintiffs with vehemence and taken up the plea that plaintiffs do not have any title in the suit property nor any right to possess the same and hence are liable to be evicted therefrom.

( 4 ) THE trial court in its impugned order has found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case; that they were in possession, prima facie not as trespassers; and that if not protected they would irreparably suffer if dispossessed or if the property in suit or any part thereof was allotted to others. With these findings, an ad interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

( 5 ) THE defendants No. 1 and 2 have come up in appeal.

( 6 ) AT the hearing, the learned Government Advocate for defendants has vehemently attacked several findings recorded by the trial court and has submitted that if only the trial court would have taken care to peruse several documents filed by the parties, in the light of the law governing the property from time to time, then it would certainly have arrived at a finding that there was no prima facie case available to the plaintiff/ respondents and hence no injunction could have been granted in that case. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondents has, on the other hand, supported the impugned order on all counts.

( 7 ) I During the course of hearing, a little strange and unusual fact came to the notice of the Court. The impugned order is dated 5-4-85. The suit was instituted on 28-6-84 impleading (i) the State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, Gwalior; (ii) the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of M. P. , Bhopal; (iii) the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior; and, (iv) the Competent Authority and A. D. M. , Gwalior, as defendants. On record there is no mention that there is any other suit pending between the parties. However, during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondents pointed out that in favour of the same plaintiffs and as against the State there is yet another order of injunction dated 11-5-84 touching this very property whereby the possession of the plaintiffs has been protected restraining the defendant / State from making any allotment of the land or properties in f