The court affirmed the necessity of a prima facie case for injunctions in property disputes, emphasizing the balance of convenience and the importance of proper boundary determination.

JUDGMENT

This original petition has been filed by the defendants challenging the order passed by the Additional District Court -II in C.M.A.No.23 of 2023. The suit was filed by the respondent seeking an injunction against the petitioners from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from widening the way on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property and demolishing the compound wall existing on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. Later, the plaint has been amended by adding another prayer for construction of a compound wall on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The defendants/petitioners reside further east of the plaint schedule property and there is a way running west to east from the way on the eastern side of the plaintiff's property, to reach the defendants property. According to the defendants, the attempt of the plaintiff is to reduce the width of the way on the eastern side of the plaintiff's property thereby affecting the passage to the defendants' property. The trial court granted an ad-interim injunction against trespass. The order has not been challenged by the defendants. Later, another application was filed seeking an order restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction for constructing a boundary wall over the granite foundation on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The trial court rejected the petition, stating that if the case of the plaintiff was that the existing compound wall was demolished after the order of injunction was issued, he could have taken out a Commission for ascertaining the said fact, and he could have also filed a petition for prosecution. Since no such steps were taken, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove a prima facie case. The plaintiff thereupon filed C.M.A.No.23 of 2023, in which the impugned order has now been issued. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case warranting grant of injunction and that the balance of convenience and potential irreparable loss also in favour of the defendants. The order of the trial court was set aside and the appellate court passed an order restraining the petitioners from causing any obstruction to the construction of the compound wall over the granite foundation on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property.

2. Heard the counsel on either side.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the the plaintiff has encroached into the way and has reduced the width to 1 meter. It is submitted that the petitioners have a way from the north western portion of the property on the northern side of the plaintiff's property, which moves towards the east and then turns and moves towards the east and then turns and moves towards the south and after reaching the eastern portion of the plaintiff's property, turns towards the east to reach the defendants' house. It is submitted that the said way is being obstructed by the action of plaintiff. Ext.P2 is the rough sketch which is prepared by the Commissioner. It is pointed out that the northern compound wall of the plaintiff's property is encroaching into the way and this affects the passage of the defendants. The injunction that has now been granted is for construction of a compound wall over the granite foundation, which is available on the eastern side of the plaintiff's property. As at present, it is not very clear whether the granite foundation on the eastern side has encroached into the way, that is a matter which will have to be ascertained. It is submitted that the defendants have filed application for taking out a survey commission. The suit is of the year 2019 and no purpose will be served by retaining this original petition in this Court and delaying the trial of the suit, the completion of which alone will