JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.1.1995 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional District Judge allowed the application u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff on the land in dispute. 2. Plaintiff Richpal filed a suit against Shyo Kazan for specific performance of the contract in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar.. Alongwith the suit, an application u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiff for the grant of temporary injunction. It was averred in the application that defendant Shyo Karan agreed to sell 91/4 Bighas of land situated in 61-NP Bearing square No. 12 Khasra numbers 16 to 25 for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- per Bigha. On 22.1.1991 he paid Rs. 80,000/- out of the total sum of Rs. 95,000/- and after the payment of this amount, on the same day an agreement to sell was executed and the possession over the land in question was handed-over to the plaintiff. It was further averred in the application that the plaintiff was always ready and still ready to perform his part of the contract but due to rise in the prices of the lands in the area, the defendant is not executing the sale-deed and claims and additional sum of Rs. 70,000/-. The plaintiff, also, averred in the application that if temporary injunction will not be granted in his favour then the defendant will sell the land to some other person. It was, also, averred in, the application that the plaintiff has spent about Rs. 40,000/- in the improvement of the land. In support of his application, the plaintiff filed a copy of the Agreement to Sell as well as his own affidavit. 3. This application for the grant of temporary injunction was opposed by the defendants and it was stated in the reply that no such agreement was ever executed and the agreement placed on record is a false and fabricated document. The facts are that the defendant met with an accident and on account of burst of stove he lost both of his legs. The plaintiff, who is his nephew in relation, helped his by spending Rs. The facts are that the defendant met with an accident and on account of burst of stove he lost both of his legs. The plaintiff, who is his nephew in relation, helped his by spending Rs. 40,000/- on his treatment which amount was taken by the defendant as the loan. On account of loss of both the legs he could not cultivate the land and gave it to the plaintiff for cultivation on share basis. The plaintiff used to give the share of the defendant to him till last year and when the amount of his share was not given to him, the defendant filed a suit in the Revenue Court and to meet-out that revenue suit, this false case has been filed by the plaintiff against him. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, after considering the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has prima facie case in his favour, the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury were, also, decided by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge decided all the three points in favour of the plaintiff and granted temporary injunction in his favour by order dated 9.1.1995. It is against this order that the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that none of the requirements for the grant of temporary injunction stands satisfied in the present case and the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the trial Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an admitted position that the possession over the land is with the plaintiff. As per the case of the plaintiff the possession was handed over to him in pursuance to the agreement dated 21.1.91 arrived-at between the parties and after the payment of an amount of Rs. 80,000/- while according to the defendant-appellant the land in question was given to the plaintiff for cultivation on share basis and this suit has been filed to circumvent the proceedings of the revenue suit filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. 80,000/- while according to the defendant-appellant the land in question was given to the plaintiff for cultivation on share basis and this suit has been filed to circumvent the proceedings of the revenue suit filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. Whatever the position may be, but the fact is that the possession over the land is with the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge was, therefore, justified in deciding the question of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge was, also, justified in holding that the balance of convenience and the question of irreparable injury are, also, in favour of the plaintiff. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is based on the proper appreciation of the relevant material available on record and the order, passed by the learned trial Court, so far the grant of temporary injunction is concerned, does not required any interference. But, however, the learned Additional District Judge while granting the temporary injunction has not taken into consideration the interest of the other party if ultimately the suit fails. It would be, therefore, in the interest of justice that some condition may be imposed upon the plaintiff-respondent till he continues in possession of the land in question. I, therefore, think it proper to direct that the plaintiff should furnish a surety before the learned trial Court that if ultimately the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed then he will pay an amount of Rs. 9,000/- per year as mesne profit of the land in question to the defendant. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the defendant- appellant is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar granting temporary injunction maintaining the status quo and restraining the defendant not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in question provided the plaintiff furnishes a surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he will make payment of Rs. 9,000/- per year mesne profit to the defendant- appellant from today till the decision of the suit if the suit is ultimately dismissed.Appeal Partly allowed. *******