The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants before me is that when once the trial Court has held that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case and that they were not in possession of the property on the date of the suit and that their application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial Court and the appeal filed before this Hon'ble Court also met with the same fate, now the trial Court was in error in rejecting the application submitted by the defendants. The crucial date to be considered for issuing the injunction is the date on which the suit is filed. When the suit was filed, the defendants were in possession and this possession is not disputed by the other side. Only because during the pendency of the injunction granted by the trial Court, if the plaintiffs take possession, such a possession which is illegal, cannot be protected now by the order of the trial Court.

2. Held: When the plaintiffs submitted an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 CPC, it was rejected on the basis that they had no prima facie case and that they were not in possession and when the plaintiffs went before the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble High Court rejected their appeal. To put it differently, it amounts that the High Court was also of the opinion that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case and that they were not in possession on the date of suit. Therefore, it is clear that on the date when the suit was filed, defendants were in possession Defendants have a sale-deed in their favour. The recital in the sale-deed shows that possession was given to the defendants because of the sale. Therefore, prima facie it must be held that that defendants were in possession on the dale of sale; The mutation is also in their favour, Therefore, they have got a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in their favour and if their possession is disturbed, they will suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, I hold that the defendants are entitled to get an injunction against the plaintiffs. I may refer here to this Court's judgment in Motilal v. Raghuvir Sahai and others (1976 WN 331) in which the position was similar to the present case and it was held that injunction should be granted in favour of the purchaser.

3. It is clear that the plaintiffs got an injunction order in their favour by misrepresenting the facts and saying before the trial Court that they were in actual possession when in fact, they were not It can be said that the plaintiffs got the order in their favour by misrepresenting' the facts to the trial Court If such is the case and possession is taken, afterwards, then the Court has inherent powers to remedy the wrong which has been done to the defendants Powers under section 151 CPC are very wide and they are meant to put right such mischief’s as is done by the plaintiffs in this case. The crucial date to be seen is the date of the suit I may refer here to this Court's judgment in Durg Transport Company v. R. T. A., Raipur (1965 JLJ 583). RLW. 1959-43 dissented from. 1976 WN 331, 1965 JLJ 583, 1968 JLJ SN 51 and AIR 1961 SC 272 relied on. Appeal allowed, injunction granted.