The principles for granting temporary injunction require showing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable injury.

1. This is the miscellaneous appeal under order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure as the application for temporary injunction preferred by the plaintiff/appellant has been rejected by the learned trial Court by the impugned order 18-3-1993. (Parties hereinafter shall be described as per their description before the trial Court.)

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendant/State averring that the suit land situated at village-Kusumi, Tehsil-Samri, Distt. Surguja admeasuring 0.020 hectare was allotted to him by the Tehsildar vide order dated 29-9-1984 passed in Revenue Case No. 141-A year 1983-88/A 19 (1) and since then he is doing his hotel business as Bhumiswami of the said plot. However, he was served with a notice dated 15-1-1993 by Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department calling upon him to remove the encroachment within three days. The plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. Along with plaint the plaintiff filed documents as per list.

3. In reply to the application for temporary injunction, the defendants submitted that lease of the land in favour of the plaintiff is forged and the plaintiff is encroacher. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was initiated against the plaintiff in the year 1986-87, 87-88 and in the said proceedings, the plaintiff admitted that he had encroached upon the land. The encroachment was being removed as per order of the Collector, Surguja who had directed to remove all the encroachment from the side of the main road and all the persons whose encroachments were being removed, they were being provided alternative accommodation for their business in the new Bus Stand and therefore no irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff.

4. While rejecting the application for temporary injunction, the learned Additional District Judge has relied upon the orders dated 2-6-1986 and 31-1-1989 by which the Tehsildar in a proceedings under Section 248 of the Code had directed the plaintiff to remove the encroachment within 15 days and imposed a fine of Rs. 150/- and again directed the plaintiff to remove the encroachment and imposed a fine of Rs. 250/-. The learned trial Court has also relied upon the statement on oath of the plaintiff before the Tehsildar dated 31-1-1989 wherein he had admitted that he constructed his hutment over the Government land after encroaching.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the Court below has ignored this fact that the plaintiff was granted lease by an order passed in a validly registered revenue case and that the conclusion of the trial Court that no lease was granted in favour of the plaintiff is contrary to law. He further argues that undisputedly the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and he is doing his hotel business from there since long time and in case his possession is removed after demolishing his shop, he shall suffer irreparable loss.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgements of M.P. High Court delivered in the matter of Shankarlal Debiprasad Rathore v. State of M.P. and others reported in 1978 MPLJ 419, State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. M/s. H. G. Industries and another reported in 1993 MPLJ 614 : AIR 1992 MP 286 , State of M.P. and another v. Uttam Chand and others reported in 2000 (2) JLJ 143 : 2000 AIHC 1263 and in the matter of State of