A temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; failure on any component leads to dismissal.

1. C.M.P. No. 11805/2002 in C.M.P. No. 24385/2001 in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the respondent in the Appeal to vacate the interim order dated 21-12-2001 passed in C.M.P. No. 24385/2001. When the said vacate application came up for hearing, both the counsel representing the parties had advanced elaborate arguments and made a request to dispose of the main Appeal itself and thus, with the consent of both the counsel, the main Appeal itself was heard and the same is being disposed of.

2. The appellant herein filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under O.43, R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , hereinafter referred to as "Code" in short, as against an order made in I.A. No. 1410/2000 in O.S. No. 403/2000 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The appellant herein, the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, filed an application under O.39, R.1 and R.2 and S.151 of the Code praying for temporary injunction against the respondent - society restraining the said society from executing the decree to the extent of the plaint schedule property in E.P. No. 4/98 in O.S. No. 1705/85 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the suit. The appellant / plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 403/2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for the reliefs of cancellation of the alleged decree and judgment dated 17-3-1986 passed in O.S. No. 1705/85 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vijayawada, for declaration of plaintiff's title over the plaint schedule property and for possession thereof, for permanent injunction restraining the members of the defendant's society from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties, costs of the suit and also for such other suitable reliefs. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, on hearing both the sides and after marking Exs. A - 1 to A - 8 and Exs. B - 1 to B - 4 had arrived at a conclusion that the appellant / plaintiff had not established prima facie case or balance of convenience and had ultimately dismissed the application with a direction that the trial of the suit itself can be expedited. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal was preferred by the appellant and as already referred to supra, interim order was obtained and consequent thereupon an application to vacate the interim order had been filed and that is how the matter had been taken up for the final hearing of the Appeal itself and both the counsel were heard at length.

3. The facts in brief, for the purpose of disposal of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal can be narrated as hereunder.

4. As already stated supra, the appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 403/2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and the petitioner in the application, praying for the relief of temporary injunction in I.A. No. 1410/2000. The case of the appellant is that he purchased the plaint schedule property for a cash consideration of Rs. 73,500/- from Smt. Gundra Kanaka Durga under a registered sale deed dated 19-1-2000 and ever since the appellant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is also stated that the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of 305 sq. yards which was purchased by his predecessor - in - title one G. Venkata Swamy even from the year 1944 and he had perfected his title by adverse possession to the knowledge of the predecessor - in - title of the respondent / defendant - society. It was