Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that in a suit for permanent injunction namely Original Suit No. 651 of 2005 Bhaiya Lal and Anr. v. Heera Lal and Anr., the trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 9.9.2005, on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure moved by the Plaintiffs, has granted temporary injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo on spot in respect of property in dispute. Misc. appeal preferred by the Respondents has been allowed by the lower appellate court Additional District Judge, Jaunpur vide impugned order dated 13.9.2007, whereby the judgment and order passed by the trial court has been set aside holding that unless the Plaintiffs establish their prima facie title over the property in dispute, the ad interim injunction could not be granted by the trial court, accordingly vacated the temporary injunction granted by the trial court during the pendency of suit. I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. In my opinion, the view taken by the lower appellate court is wholly erroneous and perverse for the reason that the lower appellate court has confused the expressions "prima facie case" in expressions "prima facie title" over the property in dispute and held that Plaintiffs could not establish their prima facie title over the property in dispute. I am of the considered opinion that establishment of title in strict sense in respect of property in dispute is a test for decreeing the suit of permanent injunction. Such test should not be applied in a case of temporary injunction during the pendency of suit for permanent injunction. The prima facie case of the Plaintiff can be examined by the trial court from bare reading of plaint and application of ad interim injunction moved by the Plaintiff supported by an affidavit. If the trial court comes to a conclusion that the Plaintiffs have shown a debatable question in respect of title of property in suit, it can be easily assumed that the Plaintiffs have prima facie case in respect of suit property. There is distinction between prima facie title and prima facie case. One should not be confused in another. Thus, in my opinion, the view taken by the lower appellate court that Plaintiffs were required to establish their prima facie title in respect of land in dispute appears to be wholly misconceived. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by lower appellate court is hereby quashed and the order passed by trial court is upheld.
(3.) WITH the aforesaid observation, writ petition succeeds and is allowed.;