IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1369 of 2010 Vidhan Haldar and another …Petitioners/Plaintiffs Versus Kalipad Swarnkar and others ….Respondents/Defendants Present: Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs. Mr. H.S. Shekhon, Advocate for the respondents/defendants. Date of Decision: 22.09.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) Heard Mr. M. C. Pande, advocate for the petitioners as well as Mr. H.S. Shekhon, Advocate for the respondents at length. This writ petition arises out of proceeding before the civil court wherein the petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction, which is still pending before the court. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner moved an application for temporary injunction. Subsequently the respondents filed their written statement and counter claim of temporary injunction was also made by them against the petitioners. The learned court below after hearing the temporary injunction applications of the petitioners (6 Ga) and the respondents (23 Ga) rejected the temporary injunction application of the petitioners and allowed the temporary injunction application of the respondents vide order dated 28.5.2010. Aggrieved, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the appellate court against the said order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners/plaintiffs and upheld the order passed by the trial court. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the real brothers. The subject matter of the dispute is 1/2 acres of land and the petitioners and the defendants being the real brothers are “co- bhumidhars” of the property in dispute. It has come in the finding of the trial court that the defendants have raised crop on the disputed property as well as constructed a house. These were the primary consideration before the court below and finding has been recorded that prima facie the plaintiffs/petitioners has not been able to make out their case. The finding of the trial court has been upheld by the appellate court, though for other reasons as well. This Court finds no justifiable ground for interfering with the order of the two courts below which are both well reasoned orders and have been passed in accordance with the settled parameters for grant of temporary injunction, namely, (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience and (c) irreparable loss. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that he apprehends that the defendants may create third party interest or change the nature of the property. For these reasons, it is hereby directed that the defendants shall not create any third party interest in the property or raise any further constructions on the house, though the defendants are permitted to make repairs and remove the damages of the house, if any. For the reasons that this is a dispute between two brothers, which needs expeditious hearing, the court below is hereby directed to expedite the hearing of the matter and shall refrain from granting frequent adjournments, unless they are in the interest of justice. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 22.09.2010 Kuldeep