- (1.) The revision petition is against the order refusing the relief of interim injunction in a suit for injunction. The petitioners were admittedly the original owners of the property. The contesting respondent held an agreement of sale with reference to a large extent of 15 bighas of land and odd and secured a sale deed in respect of 3B-6B-3, 2/3B Pukhta. It is an admitted case that with reference to the suit property there is no sale deed in favour of the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent himself has filed his own suit for declaration and injunction or in the alternative, for possession. The injunction is sought by the plaintiff on a plea that his own title to suit property is an admitted position and the revenue entries as to cultivation also stand in his name. The plaintiff has both prima facie title and possession and is, therefore, entitled to relief of injunction. The counsel for the respondents would contend that revenue entries are wrong and, therefore, there have been action for correction of the entries. It is immediately pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents' prayer for correction has already been dismissed by the revenue authorities. The counsel for the respondents would further argue that the petitioner's son, who held a power of attorney and who purported to execute an agreement of sale, has conceded before the police in an inquiry that the respondents are in possession of the property. I cannot allow for an alleged admission by the petitioner's son before the police to prevail on the revenue entries which offered best prima facie proof of possession at the interlocutory stage.
(2.) The learned counsel would argue that the grant of injunction would amount to pre-judging the issue as laid down by the Supreme Court in Purshottam Vishandas Raheja & Anr. v. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja (D) through LRs & Ors.,2011 3 CCC 213. The suit in that case was for mandatory injunction and a grant of ad interim mandatory injunction, the Supreme Court observed that it would amount to prejudging the issue. A mandatory injunction itself is an extraordinary relief and the Court shall not grant it at the interlocutory stage. Here in this case, it is a preventive relief of injunction which the petitioners have claimed and they refer the revenue entries as lending proof of their assertions. In a suit for injunction claiming a decree, a relief of interim injunction, cannot amount to pre-judging the issue. If such a plea were to be accepted, the very purpose of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 to grant interim relief would be defeated. The Courts at the interlocutory stage will only be guided by the well-known parameters, namely, of prima facie case relating to title and possession, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The petitioners, who were admittedly the owners and from whom the title has not divested yet, cannot be defeated in their claim for injunction at the interlocutory stage. The petitioners are entitled to a relief of injunction. The impugned order is set aside and the civil revision is allowed.;