JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff brought a suit against the Defendants, namely, the Singaran Coal Syndicate, Ld., and another, on the allegation that in or about September 1903, the Defendant Company had commenced to cut an incline on a portion of the Plaintiff's land and that recently they were sinking a pit near that incline, that the manager in spite of verbal protests refused to desist, that the aforesaid acts of the Defendants had caused the land in dispute and the adjoining lands to become unfit for cultivation and that the Plaintiff would be materially injured if the Defendant Company be permitted to raise coal from that, incline or pit. Pending the trial of the suit, the Plaintiff applied for an injunction against the Defendant Company's proceeding further with the mining operations. The matter of the injunction was heard by the Subordinate Judge upon affidavits, one made by the agent of the Plaintiff and one by the manager of the Defendant Company, and in the result the Subordinate Judge granted the Injunction prayed for. 2. It would appear even from the admissions made in the Plaintiff's agent's affidavit that the Defendant Company had began operations of mining about September 1903. Mr. Millar, the manager, swears that a pit was commenced about the same time and that the Railway siding was nearly finished at the date of suit. These allegations are not admitted on behalf of the Plaintiff, though there seems to be no reason to disbelieve them. The Subordinate Judge based his order mainly upon the fact that in his opinion the object of the suit would be defeated if the Defendant No. 1 be allowed materially to alter the features of the locality. We think that in making the order that he did, the Subordinate Judge has overlooked some material considerations which should have guided him in this matter. In the first place, there is no evidence of the Plaintiffs title; on the other hand the Defendant Company was acting under a bond fide claim of right and not as a wanton trespasser. The Company is a substantial one and the Plaintiff would probably be able to realise damages from it. Then, if Mr. In the first place, there is no evidence of the Plaintiffs title; on the other hand the Defendant Company was acting under a bond fide claim of right and not as a wanton trespasser. The Company is a substantial one and the Plaintiff would probably be able to realise damages from it. Then, if Mr. Millar's affidavit is to be accepted (and the Subordinate Judge does not say that he disbelieves it) it would appear that a considerable amount of money and labour has been expended by the Defendant 'Company, and that the Plaintiff stood by for a considerable time, namely, from September 1903 till the institution of the suit in May 1904, and allowed these operations to go on without prohibition. This is a circumstance, especially in the case of a mining Company, which is of considerable importance in dealing with an application for injunction like the present one (see Kerr on Injunction, Fourth Edition, pp. 16 and 37). It seems to us, however, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Defendant Company being permitted to continue their mining operations. The loss to them by stoppage would be very great indeed, and would be out of all proportion to the loss which the Plaintiff would sustain, namely, by the non-cultivation of the land in suit and the neighboring lands; and as we have already remarked the Plaintiff for such damages would have no difficulty in securing compensation if he can prove any title thereto. For all these reasons we think that the injunction should not have been granted and we accordingly direct that it be set aside. 2. The Appellant Company is entitled to its costs which we assess at five gold mohurs. We further direct that the records be sent down at once and we desire to intimate to the Subordinate Judge that the trial of the suit should be expedited.