IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 484 of 2010 Lal Baba @ Lal Giri @ Ratnesh Lal Giri - Appellant Versus Swami Lakheshwaranand Giri and another - Respondents Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Divakar Chamoli and Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for respondent No.2. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Divakar Chamoli and Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for respondent No.2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Tehri in O.S. No. 33 of 2010, whereby the application 6-C filed by plaintiff/ appellant for temporary injunction was rejected. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ appellant filed suit No.33/2010 for permanent injunction against the defendant/respondents for restraining them from interfering in the possession, use and occupation of disputed property. Along with the suit the plaintiff also filed temporary injunction application 6-C. The defendant filed objection against it. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing parties rejected the application 6-C. I have perused the impugned order. According to plaintiff/appellant he has obtained the disputed property from his Guru Swami Ramanandgiri through a Will and Ramanandgiri had got the said property on 28.11.1971 from Shankargiri. The defendants have asserted that the Will is forged one. They also denied the possession of plaintiff over the property in suit. The learned trial court has recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff/ appellant has not been able to establish prima facie case in his favour that he is in possession of property in question. On the point of balance of convenience the learned trial court also gave finding that in view of paper No.33-C filed on record prima facie possession of plaintiff is not proved and no other document has been brought on record to 2 prove his possession, therefore, by not granting temporary injunction no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the plaintiff/ appellant. I find that the plaintiff/appellant could not prove the basics of prima facie case, as well as balance of convenience in his favour for granting temporary injunction. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the trial court. The Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice both the parties shall not create any third party interest in the property in dispute. The trial court shall decide the suit expeditiously as far as possible. Dated: 15-03-2011 (B.S. Verma, J. ) ISB