M. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS filed a suit for injunction restraining defendants-respondents from raising any construction over the disputed land and creating any obstruction in the flow of dirty water through the passage. ( 2 ) DURING pendency of the suit, they filed an application for interim injunction. The trial Court granted the injunction. Defendants filed an appeal. It was allowed. ( 3 ) THE operative portion of the order of the appellate Court runs as follows :"the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside. The defendant-appellants are permitted to raise their constructions over the disputed land on furnishing adequate undertaking to the effect that the constructions to be raised by them in the disputed land shall be demolished if their claim finally fails. "the order passed by the appellate Court is a just order. It protects the interest of both parties. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioners contended that refusal of injunction amounts to dismissal of the suit. I find no merit in it. The Court is not bound to grant injunction in every case whenever a prayer is made. There are certain guidelines which are to be kept in mind before granting injunction. ( 5 ) IN order to obtain an interlocutory injunction it is not enough for the plaintiff to show that he has a prima facie case. He must further show that : (I) in the event of withholding the relief of temporary injunction he will suffer an irreparable injury, (ii) in the event of his success in the suit in establishing his alleged legal right encroachment whereof is complained against, he will not have the proper remedy in being awarded adequate damages, (iii) the plaintiff must show a clear necessity for affording immediate protection to his legal right, if any and, (iv) lastly the Court has to take into consideration the comparative mischief or inconvenience to the parties. Unless these ingredients are established injunction should not be granted. ( 6 ) IN the instant case petitioners have filed a suit claiming easementary right to flow dirty water over the passage. ( 7 ) THE Court below has held that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of acquiring easementary right of flowing dirty water over the passage. ( 6 ) IN the instant case petitioners have filed a suit claiming easementary right to flow dirty water over the passage. ( 7 ) THE Court below has held that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of acquiring easementary right of flowing dirty water over the passage. Reliance was made to a case reported in 1981 ACJ 498 : (AIR 1982 NOC 1) (All), Bansraj v. Ram Sakal which had followed the earlier Full Bench decision reported in AIR 1979 All 71 Jag Narain v. Ram Dulare. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record I find that the order of the appellate Court is just and correct one. It does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, any observation made by me or by the appellate Court on the question of acquiring easementary right of flowing dirty water will not affect the merit of the case. It will be open to the trial Court to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence and in accordance with law. ( 10 ) WITH these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order accordingly. .