IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 679 of 2006 Sayeed S/O Shri Sadiq, R/O Village Hassanawala, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil-Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Versus Naseem S/O Shri Sadiq and four others. … Respondents. Sri Pramod Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 3. Sri Gopal Narain Srivastava, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 4&5. Date June 12, 2009. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27-4- 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Roorkee, whereby the temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. of the petitioner-plaintiff in Original Suit No. 62 of 2005, has been rejected. By the order dated 18-5- 2006, the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Sayeed Vs. Naseem and others has been dismissed and the finding recorded by the trial court has been affirmed by the appellate court. Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants Naseem and others before the trial court on the ground that by playing fraud on him the defendant no. 3 instead of executing an agreement in his favour he got executed a sale deed on 29-9-1999. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction. The learned trial court did not find favour with the plaintiff and the trial court has held that the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie case and rejected the application for temporary injunction. The learned trial court as well as the appellate Court on the basis of sale deed prima facie has held that indirectly the petitioner admitted the possession of the defendant and the possession goes with title. Besides, from a perusal of the plaint, which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition, it reveals that no suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed. According to the plaintiff-plaintiff himself, the allegation in the petition is that by playing fraud and mis- representation, instead of agreement, the respondent no. 3 got executed the sale-deed. Counter affidavit has been filed in reply thereto, the defendant no. 3 has contended therein that the denied the averment of fraud made by the petitioner and it is also stated that the possession was handed over at the time of execution of sale-deed. During the course of argument, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the mutation in the revenue record was also made in favour of respondent no.3. It is admitted to the petitioner that there exists a sale deed as on today in favour of the defendant no.3. Prima facie the petitioner has not established prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendant- respondent and if the injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, the respondent no. 3 would suffer irreparable injury. I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. The impugned orders do not suffer from manifest error of law. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP