JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - In this F.A.F.O. order of temporary injunction passed by the Civil Judge, Orai on 3-8-87 has been called in question. The facts of the case in so far as they are relevant for our purposes are that in village Baghara district Jalaun appellant has a sewerage farm in plot Nos. 216 & 220 to 241 admeasuring 86 acres in all. Tenders were invited by the appellant for use of the aforesaid land for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 for carrying out agricultural operations. Plaintiff-respondent's tender at the rate of Rs. 530-0 per acre per year was accepted by the Executive Engineer and it was followed by an agreement dated 5-6-1986 (Annexure 3' to the appellants' affidavit). 2. Admittedly the plaintiff respondent entered into possession over the land in question and during the year 1985-86 and 1936-87 carried on agricultural operations without any let or hindrance by the appellants. It is also admitted that during this period a total sum of Rs. 91,160.00 was deposited by the respondent. Details of payment are mentioned in paragraphs 4 & 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent. According to the respondent the appellants published a notice inviting fresh tenders for the years 1987-88 on 27-5-87. It was in violation of the agreed terms and consequently the present suit was filed. The respondent also moved an application for ad-interim injunction which has been allowed. 3. Sri Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the court below suffers from serious illegalities and the court even failed to consider the question of balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury while disposing of the injunction application. 4. Though the matter was listed for orders on stay matter but during arguments, both the learned counsel prayed that the appeal itself may be disposed of at this very stage. Since parties have already exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits, we proceed to decide the appeal itself. 5. It is incontrovertible that before the court can grant temporary injunction three conditions must be satisfied viz. The plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case which means that a bona fide contention should exist which raises serous question to be tried ; the balance of convenience, and likelihood or irreparable injury if injunction was refused. 5. It is incontrovertible that before the court can grant temporary injunction three conditions must be satisfied viz. The plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case which means that a bona fide contention should exist which raises serous question to be tried ; the balance of convenience, and likelihood or irreparable injury if injunction was refused. Admittedly, the plaintiff has been in possession over the land in question for the last two years i.e. 1985-86 and 1986-87 without any objection being raised by the defendant appellant. The entire amount for that period has already been paid in terms of the agreement and no dispute about it survives. The case of the respondent was that for the present year a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was offered before filing of the suit but the same was not accepted by the appellant. Admittedly the respondent still continues to be in possession over the land over a part of which crop was also standing. It was alleged that for carrying out agricultural operations the plaintiff had constructed water channels etc. Over the land which had also been levelled to make it suitable for cultivation. According to the agreement, which was admittedly signed by the appellants Executive Engineer the plaintiff was entitled to remain in possession from July, 1985 to 15th May 1988. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has, however, drawn our attention to a note appearing after clause 3 of the agreement, According to this note the appellant had reserved the right to invite fresh tenders for the next year if dues payable for the earlier year had not been cleared and to take resort to other legal proceedings also 011 the basis of this note it is contended that on the expiry of each year during the three years period for which tender has been accepted a fresh agreement was to be executed. However this clause appears to run counter to term No. 1 of the agreement which entitles the respondent to remain in possession for three years. Even if the conditions mentioned in the said Note be taken on its face value, the defendant can only ensure deposit of amount due for the previous year before permitting the plaintiff to continue his possession in the coming Year. Even if the conditions mentioned in the said Note be taken on its face value, the defendant can only ensure deposit of amount due for the previous year before permitting the plaintiff to continue his possession in the coming Year. As seen earlier, the entire amount for the year 1986-87 had already been deposited and therefore, the appellants had no occasion to invite fresh tender for 1987- 8 in terms of the said note. Right to notify fresh tenders could arise only when there was default in payment of dues for the previous year. 7. It is well established that in granting interim injunction the court should see on which side, in the event of obtaining a successful result to the suit, will be the balance of convenience if the injunctions had been issued, bearing in mind the importance of retaining the immovable property in status quo. It is, however, sufficient if the court finds a case which shows that there is substantial question to be investigated and that the matter should be preserved in status quo unil the question can be finally decided. It is, of course, true that merely because non issue of temporary injunction will render the suit itself as infructuous can be no ground for granting the injunction. 8. From the above discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff has been able to establish a strong prima facie case, such as raises a serious enough question for decision after trial. 9. It is true that in the order, the court below did not elaborately discuss the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the plaintiff but these have been nominally touched in the later part of the order. This minor defect in the order can, however be glossed over because there is enough material on the record to establish that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff was in possession and had been ready to pay the agreed amount for 1987-88 itself tilts the balance in favour of the plaintiff. Admittedly the appellant intends to give its form to the highest tenderer and has no plan to itself occupy it. In these circumstances plaintiff has the scales of Justice bending in his favour. 10. Admittedly the appellant intends to give its form to the highest tenderer and has no plan to itself occupy it. In these circumstances plaintiff has the scales of Justice bending in his favour. 10. On the question of irreparable injury also it is obvious that at least some crop was standing on a part of the land. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the month of May falls soon after harvest time. Thus there was every liklihood that the earlier crop may have already been harvested. Also it does take time for the cultivator to prepare and make the land ready for the next sowing. In the circumstances, if crop was standing only on four acres of land it cannot be a factor against the plaintiff. This fact alone cannot show that the plaintiff did not intend to cultivate the remaining land. Agricultural land always remains uncultivable for a short interval between any two crops. 11. The plaintiff has undisputedly spent some money over the construction of channels etc. and was bound to suffer irreparable in case he is dispossessed before the expiry of the period for which these arrangements had been made. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on a decision in M/s. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation v. Vth Addl, District Judge, Kanpur, 1983 U.P. Local Bodies and Education Cases pages 3 to 8 where the general principles on which an interim injunction should be granted have been very lucidly explained. However, the facts of that case were quite different from the facts of the instant case. Even when the principles laid down in that case are applied here it will be obvious that the plaintiff being in possession had prima facie strong case particularly because the possession of the plaintiff is neither forcible nor unauthorised. The plaintiff came up on the property under an agreement and normally it had a right to continue for the year in question also but for the action threatened to be taken by the appellant. 13. The learned counsel lastly urged that even if any breach of agreement had been committed by the appellants the respondents remedy was to seek compensation resulting from such breach. We, however, cannot agree to this submission in this case particularly because the law also enjoins that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. 14. 13. The learned counsel lastly urged that even if any breach of agreement had been committed by the appellants the respondents remedy was to seek compensation resulting from such breach. We, however, cannot agree to this submission in this case particularly because the law also enjoins that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant informed us that the land had already been auctioned for the years 1987-88 for a sum of Rs. 57,280-00 while the respondent would only pay Rs. 45,580-00 for the same period. The appellant is therefore, likely to receive Rs. 12,000/- more than what the plaintiff shall pay. This is the amount which the appellant may lose if an injunction was granted. For this the appellants' interest can be adequately safeguarded. Sri R.C. Srivastava, appearing for the respondent very sportingly offered that the respondent will be prepared to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 12,000/- at the disposal of the trial court to compensate the defendant appellant in the event of failure of the plaintiff in the suit. 15. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and it ought to be dismissed. However, this order is subject to the condition that the plaintiff respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs. 12,000/- (twelve thousands) along with the first instalment of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousands) payable for 1987-88 within two weeks from today and the remaining two instalments by the due dates viz. 31-10-1987 and 9-2-1988. The amount of Rs. 12,000/- (twelve thousands) shall be in the form of a Fixed Deposit in a nationalised Bank carrying interest for an initial period of three years and shall be renewable before its expiry. The Fixed Deposit receipt should be pledged in favour of the trial court. The amount due on the fixed deposit including interest shall be payable to the successful party. 16. Subject to these conditions being complied, the injunction order granted by the court below is confirmed. Should any of the conditions be not complied with as aforesaid the injunction order shall stand automatically vacated. It is also made clear that the plaintiff shall have no right to continue to remain in possession over the land after 15-5-1988 the date of expiry of the term of agreement dated 5-6-85 on the strength of this order. 17. With the above observations the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is also made clear that the plaintiff shall have no right to continue to remain in possession over the land after 15-5-1988 the date of expiry of the term of agreement dated 5-6-85 on the strength of this order. 17. With the above observations the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs.