Re : I.A. No. 02 of 2025 The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (in short ' C.P.C .') with a prayer to restrain the respondents from encumbrance, construction over the suit properties and also to restrain the respondents from making lease of the suit properties with any one and changing the nature of the suit property and also to maintain the status quo over the Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 2/16 suit lands during the pendency of the appeal.

2. Mr. Chandra Kant, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondents are bent on disturbing the possession of the appellants which they have over the suit properties since long and the respondents also want to change the nature of the suit property, as they have collected materials for construction over the suit lands. When the appellants came to know about the act of the respondents, the son of the appellant No. 1 filed a petition at the Nagar police station, Siwan with revealing that despite this appeal being pending before this Court, some unsocial elements had entered into their house and started cleaning work. Thereafter, the son of the appellant No. 1 filed a petition under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ' Cr.P.C .') before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Siwan with a prayer to take preventive action under section 144 of Cr.P.C. against the opposite party, of which a copy has been filed before this Court with the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants. All these materials are sufficient to show the intention of the respondents to disposses the appellants and create disturbance in the appellants' peaceful possession over the suit lands and change the nature of the suit property.

Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 3/16

3. It is further submitted that the appellants filed Title Suit No. 141/2007 on the basis of their sale deeds with a prayer to declare their title and possession over the suit properties, of which total area is 17 dhurs and the appellants' sale deeds which are 4 in number, were executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 in the year 1985 and 1987, and these sale deeds were executed in respect of 10 dhur land and after the execution of those sale deeds, the plaintiffs started keeping their possession peacefully over the lands concerned to those sale deeds alongwith their house and shops situated over the suit property, and to show the appellants' possession over the said lands, there is sufficient documentary proof, particularly, the receipts issued by the Municipal Corporation. So far as the, 7 dhur land detailed in the Schedule 3 of the plaint is concerned, the plaintiff No.1 entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1 and also paid consideration amount of Rs. 45,000/- for transferring the said land but thereafter, the defendant No. 1 did not execute the sale deed, however, the plaintiff No. 1 got possession over that land also on 05.10.1988 and since then, the appellants have been keeping their possession over the said land and they have also got title in that land on the basis of adverse possession.

Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 4/16

4. It is lastly submitted that the entire suit property consists of 17 dhur land in which 10 dhur land was transferred by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 through four registered sale deeds and on 20.12.2006 the defendant 1st set again transferred the suit land in favour of the defendants 2 nd set by executing a registered sale deed which is completely illegal and the plaintiffs prayed for to declare the said sale deed void in their plaint, but without considering the pleadings of the plaintiffs as well as their evidences, the learned trial court gave its finding in favour of the respondents and against the plaintiffs/appellants while deciding the issue No. 6 and, consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and all the three main conditions which are essential to get the relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C . are in favour of the appellants. Furthermore, the respondents have not chosen to file their reply to the instant petition, so, the averments made in this petition should be treated as being accepted by the respondents, which is in itself sufficient to allow the prayer of the appellants.

5. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellants have referred and placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court :-

( ii) Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488.

( iii) Anand Prasad Sharma & Anr. vs. Sri. Nagendra Singh & Ors. reported in 2024 (3) BLJ 575 and the Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 6/16 relevant paragraph Nos. 7 to 10, upon which reliance has been placed, are being reproduced as under :

( iv) Rampujan Mahato vs. Kokil Mahato & Ors .

reported in 2023 (3) BLJ 470 and the relevant paragraph Nos. 7 to 9, upon which reliance has been placed, are being reproduced Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 8/16 as under : -

(v) Ravi Poddar vs. M/s Mitra Mandal Sangathan reported in 2023 (5) BLJ 738 and the relevant paragraph Nos. 24 to 30, upon which reliance has been placed, are being reproduced as under :

25. The word 'prima facie case' apparently indicates something which at first impression makes out a triable case. The term 'prima facie case' should not be confused with the term 'prima facie title' which has to be established at the trial upon permitting the parties to lead evidence. Thus, it means a substantial question which has been raised and which upon first sight needs to be investigated and decided on merits.

26. The word 'balance of convenience' denotes that the court must be satisfied that the comparative mischief and hardship. which is likely to be caused to the person seeking injunction is more than the inconvenience likely to be caused to the other party by granting such injunction.

27. The word 'irreparable injury' guides the court to be satisfied that the refusal to grant injunction would result in such injury which cannot be compensated in term of costs or otherwise and the person seeking injunction needs to be protected from the consequences of apprehended injury.

28. While dealing with aforesaid three ingredients, the court must refrain from holding a mini trial. The court should make an endeavor to test the relevant pleadings in the light of the principles as noted above and if it finds that there is a contestable issue which requires evidence of the parties to be decided and balance of convenience and irreparable injury is in favour of the party seeking the injunction then the status be preserved, as at the initial stage the rights of the parties are in an inchoate stage. The court would require the evidence to determine the rights of the parties which can only be crystallized after trial and can enable the court to form a definite opinion whether the plaintiff has a valid right or interest to pass a decree in his favour or not.

29. Considerations of equity and interests of justice would justify preservation of status quo in respect of corpus of the dispute. This is simply because, if ultimately, the case of the plaintiff is found to be without merit, the defendant could deal with property as it chooses and also Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 10/16 be adequately recompensated for the prejudice, if any, which has been caused by its inability to do so in the interregnum whereas, if the status of the property, whether in respect of title or possession, alters during the pendency of lis, the resultant prejudice to the plaintiff might be irremediable. Principles of balance of convenience too, therefore, normally justify maintenance of the status quo during the pendency of the litigation.

30. In Dalpat Kumar & Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Rule 1 primarily concerned with the preservation of property in dispute till legal rights are adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do or to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. In other words, the Court, on exercise of power of granting ad interim injunction, is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. Grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the Court satisfying that (1) there is serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the Court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/ defendants, (2) the court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it."

( vi) State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Lal Babu Prasad & Ors. reported in 2025 (1) BLJ 331 and the relevant paragraph Nos. 15 and 16, upon which reliance has been placed, are being reproduced as under : -

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot (supra) has held that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of property to be changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and which may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, both, have also found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. Once a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs have been found, on preponderance of documents of possession balance of convenience would tilt in favour of the plaintiffs notwithstanding the report of Pleader Commissioner which was submitted after 10 years of his appointment. Allowing a new construction over the suit land at this stage would clearly mean changing the nature of suit property thereby causing irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. So it becomes the duty of the court to preserve the suit property till disposal of the suit. Since the defendants/petitioners have failed to show any prima facie Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 12/16 case or balance of convenience in their favour, they have been rightly directed by the learned appellate court to maintain status quo on the suit property till disposal of the Title Suit No. 687 of 2011.

16. Without going into further details of the case, on the basis of discussion made so far, I am of the opinion that three ingredients for grant of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code are in favour of the plaintiffs and, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Siwan in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2022 and the same is affirmed."

6. On the other hand, Mr. Ranjan Kr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the appellants have not produced or shown sufficient materials to substantiate their allegations as to the respondents' intention or their attempt to change the nature of the suit land. The pleading of the appellants is completely vague as in the paragraph No. 5 of their plaint, the land mentioned in the Schedule 3 of the plaint has been shown as the suit land and it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the lands detailed in the Schedule 1 and 2 are the subject matter of the dispute and further, the I.A. No. 01/2021 for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased appellant No. 2 is still pending, so, the instant petition is premature. Learned counsel further submits that the grounds taken by the appellants for getting the relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C . are completely unacceptable, as the same are based on a petition filed by the son of the appellant No. 1, which is completely Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 13/16 vague and does not disclose or reveal the respondents as being involved in entering into the house of the appellants forcefully and the description of the house given in the said petition is completely vague and the same is not sufficient to show that an attempt was made by the respondents to commit the alleged occurrence. In respect of the actual suit land detailed in Schedule 3 of the plaint, the case of the plaintiffs/appellants is based upon an agreement for sale, which is claimed by the appellants to have been made in the year 1988 but admittedly, no suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the said agreement has been filed till date by the plaintiffs/appellants and in the instant petition, the appellants have prayed for the relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C . in respect of the land detailed in Schedule 3 of the plaint also, for which the appellants' claim is completely illegal and without any basis. He further submits that a preventive proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the suit land has been initiated on the petition filed by the appellants, and just two days after filing of that petition, the instant interlocutory application was filed which indicates that the entire sequence of events was orchestrated in a planned manner.

7. Heard both the sides, perused the pleadings of both Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 14/16 the parties, have gone through the judgment impugned and other relevant materials filed with this petition as well as supplementary affidavit. As per the appellants, the respondents have an intention to dispossess them from the suit property and have taken steps to change the nature of the same by collecting building materials for construction over the suit land. In support of this alleged act of the respondents, there is no material except a petition filed by the appellants at Siwan Town police station, of which copy has been filed with the instant I.A. as Annexure-

1. From its perusal, it appears that as per the son of the appellant No. 1, some unsocial elements entered into the house of the appellant on 02.02.2025 and started cleaning work forcefully inside the house. In the said petition, there is no details of the respondents as being involved in that alleged act nor there is details of the suit land which has been described in the Schedules of the plaint and in this regard, the said petition is completely vague. It is an admitted position that a petition under section 144 of Cr.P.C., for taking a preventive action, has been filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Siwan and the same is pending, so, the instant petition is premature and here, it is important to mention that in the paragraph No. 5 of the plaint, the land and the house detailed in the Schedule 3 of the plaint Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 15/16 has only been shown as suit property and in respect of this suit land, the plaintiffs/appellants have based their claim on the basis of an agreement for sale which has been claimed as being executed in the year 1985 and admittedly, the same did not end in the execution of a sale deed in respect of said suit property and admittedly, the plaintiffs have not taken any step to get the said agreement for sale completed by filing the suit for specific performance of contract and as per the appellants, they made their possession over the suit property of the Schedule 3 on 05.10.1988 and thereafter, got the said property merged with their other property detailed in the Schedule 2 of the plaint and the legality of this claim has not been accepted by the learned trial court by dismissing the suit of the appellants and the same is subjudice before this Court and the appellants have prayed for the relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C . in respect of the suit property detailed in the Schedule 3 along with other suit properties without separating all these suit properties in respect of the prayer made in this petition and this Court finds no prima facie case for injunction being in favour of the appellants in respect of the suit property detailed in the Schedule 3 of the plaint and further, there is no sufficient material to substantiate the aforesaid allegation made by the appellants in the instant Patna High Court FA No.157 of 2014(9) dt.24-03-2025 16/16 petition. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this petition, so, it stands rejected.

8. In result, I.A. No. 02 of 2025 stands disposed of.

9. Put up this appeal under appropriate heading on its turn.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/-