A temporary injunction should not be granted to disturb long-standing prima facie possession of a party, especially when alternative access is available and no irreparable loss is demonstrated, as the legality of possession is a matter for trial.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned appellate Court dated 25.11.2025 whereby the rejection of the temporary injunction to the petitioner has been confirmed by the appellate Court.

2. The petitioner has filed a suit on the basis of easement, asserting that government land in Survey No. 294 is a land earmarked for way and the petitioner/ plaintiff has a right to have access from the said land in Survey No.294. The petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint has submitted that the defendants have unlawfully executed a sale deed in respect of the land containing Survey No. 294, though t is a government land, and only on the strength of the said sale deed, they are asserting their rights from the land, and on no other ground.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, has argued that the Revenue Authorities i.e. Additional

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA

Signing time: 12/23/2025 12:27:33 PM

Collector, so also the Additional Commissioner have found that the land is a government land and therefore rejected the application of the defendants for correction of Revenue Records.

3. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the temporary injunction was denied to the petitioner but was granted to the defendants way back on 29.10.2021 and there is a finding of both the Courts that prima facie the defendants seem to be in possession of the land in question. The Courts have also found that there is alternative access available to the petitioner to access his lands and there does not seem to be any irreparable loss being caused to the petitioner if the temporary injunction is not granted to him.

4. As both the Courts have prima facie arrived to a finding that the defendants seem to be in possession of the land in question, then the question that whether their possession is lawful or unlawful, would be something to be determined by the trial court after evidence. By way of temporary injunction, the long possession of the defendants, which has prima facie been found to be established by the both the Courts, could not have been interfered with.

5. Consequently, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court.

6. Resultantly, by confirming the impugned orders, the petition is dismissed.