share of land of the joint patta since his childhood and also has possessed his purchased land peacefully since 1984 by constructing dwelling houses and digging fishery over his land and by making payment of revenue to the Government. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had already obtained the financial aid of one pucca house from the Central Government and in that regard had purchased sand, bricks, rods, cement etc. for constructing the pucca house over the 4 Kathas of land out of the 5 Bighas of land covered by Dag No.119 of Periodic Patta No.17 of Village Tatikata Pathar, Kissam under Mouza Moirabari in the District of Morigaon. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the principal defendants are not pattadars of the suit land and without having any right, title and interest over the suit land, the said principal defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 have been threatening the plaintiff to attack since 20.06.2022. It is under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed the said suit seeking the reliefs as above mentioned.

5. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff also filed an injunction application which was registered as M.J Case No.104/2022 seeking an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties/the defendants from entering into the Schedule-A land during the pendency of the suit.

6. The defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed their written statement as well as written objection wherein they denied the case of the plaintiff. It was mentioned in the written statement that the plaintiff with the assistance of some miscreants illegally and forcefully occupied the share portion of the land of one Late Himu Seikh and therefore one Soyedur Rahman, the grandson of Late Himu Seikh arranged a Raiz Mel and defendants assisted the said Soyedur Rahman in that Raiz Mel. It was categorically stated that the answering defendants are the grandsons and granddaughters of Late Keramat Ali and they have been possessing the land belonging to their father, namely Hatem Ali.

7. The learned Trial Court vide an order dated 13.02.2023 came to a finding that the plaintiff had the prima facie case and there was also a balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was in possession of the Schedule-A land. It was also observed that if no temporary injunction is allowed that may cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff and it is under such circumstances, the defendants who were the opposite parties in the injunction application were restrained from entering into the Schedule-A land during the pendency of the Title Suit.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 before the learned First Appellate Court which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 7/2023. The learned First Appellate Court however interfered with the order dated 13.02.2023 by coming to a finding that though the plaintiff had a prima facie case but aspect pertaining to balance of convenience and irreparable injury was not present. From the findings so arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court, it appears that the learned First Appellate Court was a bit confused on the aspect pertaining to the balance of convenience in as much as the learned First Appellate Court observed that if an injunction is granted, the defendant would suffer equal degree of inconvenience and similarly, if the injunction is not granted, the petitioner would suffer equal degree of inconvenience and on the basis thereof, came to an opinion that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioner for grant of an injunction. This Court finds it relevant to observe that when the question of balance of convenience is to be adjudged, the Court is required to do so on the basis of the competing claims and in whose favour the claims prima facie tilt for grant of injunction.

9. On the question of irreparable loss or injury, the learned First Appellate Court came to a finding that the plaintiff would not suffer any irrepara