Temporary injunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and evidence of irreparable loss; without these, the court exercises discretion to deny such relief.

ORDER :

HIMANSHU JOSHI, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Order 43 Rule 1 (R) of the CPC against the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by learned 9" District Judge, Bhopal in RCS No.A/12/2025 whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, stating therein that Plaintiff No. 1 is a private limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Gwalior, under the Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff No. 2 is the Director of the said Signature Not Verified company. Plaintiff No. 2 was authorized by a resolution dated 26.11.2024 to file the civil suit. Plaintiff No. 1 purchased agricultural land located in Village Bilkiriya Khurd, Tehsil Huzoor, District Bhopal (M.P.) on 10.09.2024 through various sale deeds. The details of the purchased land are as follows:-

Khasra No. 80/2 out of 1.61 hectares, 1.6045 hectares. Khasra No. 92/1 out of 0.3900 hectares, 0.3845 hectares. Khasra No. 92/2 measuring 2.0000 hectares. Khasra No. 92/3 measuring 1.0000 hectares. Khasra No. 96 measuring 1.0000 hectares. Thus, a total area of 5.9890 hectares, which is 14.79 acres, situated in village Bilkhariya Khurd, Patwari Halka No. 26, Revenue Inspector Mandal-3, Development Block, Fanda, Ratanpur Road, Tehsil Kolar, District Bhopal.

3. The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1 in the suit) was a former employee of the company and Plaintiff No. 1 had granted limited authority to respondent No. 1 to execute the sale deed dated 10.09.2014 in respect of the suit properties. The reliefs prayed before the trial Court are as under:-

4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction. In the application, the plaintiffs prayed that the defendants be restrained from creating any third-party right and from changing the nature of the suit property.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court by adopting erroneous reasoning. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs, through their application, had made out a prima facie case in their favour, and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour for granting temporary injunction. It is contended by the counsel that if the disputed property is sold or transferred, it would cause irreparable loss to the appellants/plaintiffs. In light of the well-settled principles, the learned trial Court below ought to have allowed the application and Signature Not Verified restrained the defendants from altering or transferring the suit property belonging to the appellants/plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants categorically argued that the company initially purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 10.09.2014 by authorizing respondent No. 1 to execute the same. From that date onward, respondent No. 1 had no right to alienate the suit property in favour of any other person. It is further submitted that defendant No. 1 resigned from the company and joined another company in the year 2017, which is evident from the affidavit placed on record. Despite being aware that he had been granted only limited authority for the purpose of purchasing the di