IMPORTANT POINT
The legal requirements for the grant of a temporary injunction, including the defendant's prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury, must be considered in light of the ambiguity in the suit prayer and the significance of earlier litigation findings.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, is defendant No.2 in O.S. No.8 of 2015 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur. He filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.297 of 2016 in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 CPC, claiming that he was in possession of the suit land and seeking a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs and their men from entering into the suit land during the pendency of the suit. By order dated 26.08.2016, the Trial Court allowed his petition and directed that status quo as regards possession of the suit land by defendant No.2 shall be maintained and restrained the plaintiffs and their men from entering into the suit land till the disposal of the suit or until further orders, whichever was earlier.

2. Assailing the said order, the plaintiffs in the suit filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur. This appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, vide order dated 05.05.2017, setting aside the status quo order passed by the Trial Court in favour of defendant No.2.

3. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.2 is before this Court by way of this revision. By order dated 30.06.2017, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur. Thereafter, by order dated 06.9.2017, this Court directed that the interim order granted earlier shall continue until further orders.

4. Heard Mr. Th. Henba, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. S.Sachindra Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

5. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

6. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.8 of 2015 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit land or, in the alternative, for eviction of defendant No.3, who was stated to have been engaged by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to take possession of the suit land, and for delivery of possession of the suit land to them, in case defendant No.3 was found to be in possession thereof. The suit land, in two schedules, consisted of paddy fields in patta No.1101 (Old)/253(New) BT of Dag No.1284, CS Dag No.1293 of Village No.51-Ngangkhalawai.

7. It is clear from the suit prayer itself that the plaintiffs were not certain as to their being in possession of the suit land. Perhaps this ambiguity on their part stemmed from the earlier litigation involving their predecessor-in-title, Khundrakpam Juge Singh. O.S. No.7 of 2010 was filed by him against defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the present suit, and others, seeking declaration of his title as regards the suit schedule properties therein and for other reliefs. The suit schedule properties were comprised in four schedules and included the paddy fields which form the suit land in the present suit. This aspect is not in dispute.

8. By order dated 31.07.2013, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur, dismissed O.S. No.7 of 2010 holding that Khundrakpam Juge Singh had failed to prove and establish that he was in possession of the suit schedule properties. Civil Appeal No.2 of 2014 filed by Khundrakpam Juge Singh before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, was dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 09.07.2014, affirming this finding of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court specifically held that preponderance of probability was in favour of the defendants and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit lands at the time of institution of that suit.

9. Significantly, the plaintiffs in O.S. No.8 of 2015 are none other than the widow and children of Khundrakpam Juge Singh, Therefore, they claim through him and would be bound by the findings in the earlier round of litigation. This was the aspect that weighed with the Trial Court, as is clear from a perusal of the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Civ