Kamlesh Sharma, J. - (1.) The dispute between the parties is in respect of the building known as Shop No. 50, the Mall, Shimla (hereinafter called 'the property in dispute'). It consists of two storeys and a basement. The upper story is in occupation of defendants No. 1 and 2 whereas the ground floor and the basement is in the occupation of defendant No.3. Plaintiff Bishamber Lal Sud has prayed for a decree against defendants No. 1 to 3 for possession of first floor of the building in dispute; recovery of Rs.36,000/- as use and occupation charges of upper story at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month and also future mesne profits, rendition of accounts with respect to ground floor and the basement by defendants No. 1 and 2 and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 to deal with the property and restraining defendants 1 to 3 to alienate, transfer encumber or part with the possession of the property in dispute in favour of any other person except the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also asked for mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 3 to attorn him as landlord with respect to the premises in his occupation.
(2.) The plaintiff has also filed O.M.P. No. 121 of 1993 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 with Section 151 C.P.C. for interim injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 3 to deal with the property in dispute and also to restrain them to alienate, transfer, encumber in any manner or to part with the possession of the said property in favour of any other person except the plaintiff. When this application was placed before this Court on 22nd April, 1993, order of status-quo as it existed on that day was passed. Defendants No. 1 and 2 had filed a caveat and were represented by their counsel. They were given time to file reply. On the next date, that is, 7th May, 1993, the order of status-quo was vacated on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2 that they will not proceed with the execution of the eviction order against defendant No. 3 for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, defendant No. 3 also joined the proceedings on 3rd June, 1993. Written statement on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 and replication thereto have been filed. Written statement on behalf of defendant No. 3 is also on record. Besides reply to OMP No. 121 of 1992, defendants No. 1 and 2 have also filed OMP No. 158 of 1993 for hearing the application (s) for interim orders urgently and to permit the execute the eviction order against defendant No. 3. The plaintiff has filed another application, OM P No. 299 of 1993 for interim order of status-quo till the disposal of OMP No. 121 of 1993. As the learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2 showed his inability to continue with the undertaking given by him not to execute the eviction order against defendant No.3, this Court passed an order that in the meantime defendant No. 3 will not be dispossessed front the premises occupied by him. On 24th August, 1993, when the matter was fixed for dictating judgment on these OMPs, defendant No. 3 moved OMP No. 376 of 1993 with the prayer that the suit be ordered to be heard at an early date to avoid any disadvantage to any of the parties and till it is decided, he is prepared to continue depositing a reasonable amount by way of mesne profits for use and occupation of the premises in his possession, which may be paid to the person who is held entitled thereto. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed reply to this application.
(3.) This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The principles of grant of interim injunction are well settled. In order to obtain an order of interim injunction, the plaintiff must show that (i) he has a prima facie case; (ii) that he is likely 'i to suffer an irreparable injury if the interim injunction as prayed for is not granted and (iii) that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. The words "prima facie case" have been interpreted in a number of judicial pronouncements by different High Courts in which there is unanimity that if from the material placed before the Court, such issues arise which need to be investigated by the Court at the trial, the prima-facie case is made out. In other words, it only means substantial question raised in the pleadings which at first sight appears worth investigation and decision. It is not to be confused with the prima facie title which has to be established on evidence. For holding a prima facie case, the Court is also supposed to examine that the suit is not barred by law or the allegations made in the plaint do not entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed.;