The grant of a temporary injunction requires the simultaneous satisfaction of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury; failure to specifically identify the property and the existence of a long-standing right of access for the opponent weigh against such relief.

Order on Board

1. The appellant/defendant has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 05-A/2024 (Kanhaiyalal v. Jethmal & Another), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking grant of temporary injunction.

2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for possession and permanent injunction in respect of a shop constructed on Nazul Sheet No. 38-D, Plot No. 237, admeasuring about 25 sq. mtr. out of total 69 sq. mtr., claiming ownership on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1976. The plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are real brothers, and their properties, along with that of another brother, are situated adjacent to each other and were constructed around the same time. The plaintiff had constructed a house over 44 sq. mtr. and the suit shop over 25 sq. mtr. It is stated that, on the request of Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff permitted him to use the suit shop with a condition that it would be vacated whenever required. Subsequently, when the plaintiff needed the shop for his son, Defendant No. 1 avoided vacating the same despite repeated requests, leaving the plaintiff with no option but to institute the present suit.

3. In the said suit the Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement as also the counterclaim along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking grant of temporary injunction in respect of the suit property bearing old House No. 8 and new House Nos. 38-B/235, 236, 237 and 238, admeasuring in total 382 sq. meters, over which a double-storied building consisting of shops in the front portion and residential accommodation in the rear portion is constructed. The relief sought is to restrain the plaintiff and any other person from interfering with his peaceful possession and business activities, from forcibly dispossessing him, and from using the suit shop as a passage during pendency of the suit.

4. The case of Defendant No. 1, as set out in the counterclaim, is that the suit properties were acquired out of joint family income in the names of different family members during the lifetime of their parents and even thereafter. It is contended that the portion bearing present Municipal No. 38-B/235 (admeasuring 172 sq. meters) was purchased in the names of their parents, which upon their demise devolved upon the sons, including the plaintiff, who is residing therein. The remaining portions bearing Nos. 38-B/236, 237 and 238 were purchased in the individual names of family members, including Defendant No. 1.

5. According to Defendant No. 1, a double-storied structure was constructed over the entire property, wherein the front portion comprising three shutter shops fell to his share and has been in his possession, and he has been carrying on his independent electronics business therein since the year 1980. The rear portion is in occupation of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that a channel gate of about 4 feet width existed between the portions, through which the plaintiff was permitted to pass to access his residence due to cordial family relations and mutual understanding.

6. The Defendant No. 1 alleges that disputes subsequently arose between the parties regarding their respective shares an