TRILOKI NATH Vs. GANESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This First Appeal From Order is directed against the order, dated 20-4-1995 passed by the Civil Judge, Deoria refusing to grant injunction claimed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C. P. C. The plaintiff had claimed an injunction that the defendant be restrained from interferring with the possession over the house Nos. 463 and 463/1 Ward 7, Deoria and also not to transfer the property and maintain the house in the same condition and maintain status quo.

(2.) THE plaintiff pleaded that the defendant-plaintiff are real brothers, the property in dispute is ancestral THE parties are entitled to half share each, after the death of their father. THE plaintiff pleaded that the defendant got his name illegally mutated in his favour and the plaintiff has no knowledge about it. THE allegation is that the defendant is trying to usurp the entire ancestral property for himself.

(3.) SATISFY that non-interference by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, how ever, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. Lastly, the Apex Court while considering the question of the balance of convenience observed:- "the Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing pos sibilities or probabilities or likelihood of injury and if the court considers that pending the suit, the subject-matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued, Thus, the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit. "