This revision is from an order dated 31.8.84 of the District Judge Manipur passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 9/84 dismissing an appeal from an order of the Munsiff, Thoubal passed in Judicial Misc. Case No. 42/83 granting temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit land by the plaintiff. 2. The facts of the case for disposal of the present case are thus. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. J8 of 1983 claiming, inter alia, declaration of her title to the suit land and permanent injunction against the defendants and their privies from interfering with her possession of that suit land. She instituted suit on the footing that she had inherited the suit land from her father and her name was recorded in the record of rights in the year 1968. She has been in possession of the suit land by paying land revenue thereof. In the year 1982, it was found that the names of the defendants had been entered in the record of rights and the defendants have been threatening to interfere with her possession. The defendants contested the suit by denying her title. The area of the suit land is 2.22 acres. The case of the defendant 2 is that she purchased from the plaintiff -64 acre in January 1969 at Rs. 500/-under an unregistered deed of sale and that she has been possessing the same. The case of the defendant 3 is that he purchased -65 acre from the plaintiff in February 1969 under an unregistered sale deed and that he has been possessing it. The case of the defendant 1 is that he purchased -93 acre from the plaintiff under a registered deed of sale dated 7.1.70 at Rs. 1000/-and that he has been possessing the land. As regards the unregistered deeds, the Courts below have observed that such deeds, if any, would be invalid as the sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards can only be made by a registered sale deed under section 54 T.P. Act. With regard to the registered sale deed, the Court below observed that such sale, if any, would come within the statutory prohibition as provided under section 157 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. With regard to the registered sale deed, the Court below observed that such sale, if any, would come within the statutory prohibition as provided under section 157 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. Considering the above observations and the record of rights, the Courts below granted temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. 3. In my judgment, while granting an injunction at the inter­locutory stage, a prim a facie case of a high degree that the party seeking interlocutory injunction at interlocutory stage would be able to establish his right at the trial, is also to be considered. Let me test the matter in this way. While granting or refusing an injunction at the interlocutory stage, there is a risk that the Court may make a wrong decision. In a case where an interlocutory injunction has been granted to a party and the party fails to establish his right at the trial, then an injustice has been caused to the party against whom injunction has been granted. There may be a case where an interlocutory injunction has been refused to a party who turns out to be successful at trial, in that case also injustice has been caused to that party. Therefore, there is a risk of creating injustice while granting or refusing an injunction at the interlocutory stage. But the Court has to take the risk and it is a matter of degree, namely, lesser degree of risk and/or greater degree of risk of injustice. The only question is how the degree of risk of injustice is to be determined. It. depends upon a variety of factors and it is impossible to lay down any inflaxible rule or set formula. However, in my judgment, one of the methods is existence of a prima facie case of a high degree that party seeking an injunction at the interlocutory stage would be able to establish his right at the trial. There may also be an exception to it as the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction is discretionary and free from fixed rules and each case is to be considered on the basis of fairness and justice. There may also be an exception to it as the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction is discretionary and free from fixed rules and each case is to be considered on the basis of fairness and justice. For example, if it appears to the Court that the case is one in which withholding interlocutory injunction would, in fact, carry greater risk of injustice then granting it even though Court does not find a prima facie case of a high degree, there cannot be any rational basis for withholding injunction, if other circumstances for the grant are satisfied. 4. Coming to the present case, the observations of the Courts below are not unreasonable at this interlocutory stage. It is also important to note that the Courts below were conscious of prejudging the suit on merits before trial. A perusal of the judgment of the learned District Judge shows that the observation as to validity of the deeds were for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff could make out a prima facie case of a high degree. The Courts below have not observed that the sale deeds cannot be use for any purpose. They have referred to the relevant laws wit! reference to the deeds and did not decide the suit on merits before trial 5. Apart from the above conclusion, the orders of the Court! below may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law 01 may not be in accordance with law; but they had the jurisdiction to make the orders- It is not a case that Courts below have exer­cised their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularities. 6. For the reasons stated, the revision is dismissed. The trial Court shall 'dispose of the suit untrammelled by the observations made by the Courts below and the observation made by this Court. Interim order stands vacated. No costs.