S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the defendants No. 1 to 4 against the order by which the plaintiff's appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C. P. C. has been alloowed and these defendants have been restrained from levelling the tank and raising any construction thereon until the decision of the suit. ( 2 ) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that by order dated 6-7-1965 of the Additional Collector, Jabalpur it was directed : "the tank bearing Khasra No. 1318 within Murwara be recorded in the name of appellant Shri T. C. Bajan subject to rights of nistar exercised by the villagers in the tank". In the Khatauni of the year 1954-55 it is recorded that according to wajib-ul-arz the villagers take bath and their cattle drink water and bathe in this tank. After the aforesaid order the entries which appear against this Khasra are :- (Vernacular matter omitted. . . . . Ed.) this entry continued up to the year 1977-78. It was deleted by the order dated 2-5-1979 of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the application of T. C. Bajan. It was done after obtaining the report of the Patwari and Naib-Tehsildar to the effect that the water in the tank has become dirty and polluted. The S. d. O. further stated in his order that Katni has now become a town and ceased to be a village and for that reason the entry relating to nistari rights in the wajib-ul-arz has lost its relevance. the S. D. O. purporting to act under S. 242 (5) (a) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 deleted the entry from the wajib-ul-arz. Before doing so no notice was given to the villagers for whose benefit the entry appeared in the records. One of the grounds for modifying the entry was " (a) that all persons interested in such entry wish to have it modified. " The S. D. O. did not advert to this aspect in his order and did not record that the villagers wish to have the entry modified. The other grounds for modification of the entry as provided in Clauses (b) to (e) of sub-sec. (5) of S. 242 were not available as they relate to modification consequent upon the decree or order of the Civil Court. The other grounds for modification of the entry as provided in Clauses (b) to (e) of sub-sec. (5) of S. 242 were not available as they relate to modification consequent upon the decree or order of the Civil Court. ( 3 ) AFTER fourteen years of the said order of the S. D. O. his successor-in-office sought permission of the Additional Collector for review of this order. The permission was granted by the Additional Collector on 16-6-1993. The S. D. O. , by this order dated 30-4-1994 after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned cancelled the order dated 2-5-1979 and restored the entry of the wajib-ul-arz. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Collector by his order dated 12-3-1998. Defendant No. 1 Leela Purohit and company, a partnership firm, which claims to have acquired the rights of T. C. Bajan filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur. By order dated 30-3-1999 he has set aside the orders of the S. D. O. and the Additional Collector and maintained the earlier order of the S. D. O. Though the Additional Commissioner specifically recorded a finding that no proclamation or notice was issued to the villagers by the S. D. O. before passing the order dated 2-5-1979 this defect was held to be of "technical nature. " ( 4 ) SHALABH Kumar and four others had filed Civil Suit No. 29-A of 1992 in the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class I, Mudwara (Katni ). It was a representative suit under Order 1 rule 8 C. P. C. An application under this rule was submitted for permission of the Court to sue in representative capacity. Notices and advertisements were ordered to be issued. It is not known whether any permission as required by this rule was granted by the Court or not but on 3-7-1997 the suit was dismissed in default. The relief which was claimed in this suit was declaration that the villagers have aforesaid nistari rights in the tank Khasra No. 1318/1 area O. 959 hectare and for injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the said rights. The relief which was claimed in this suit was declaration that the villagers have aforesaid nistari rights in the tank Khasra No. 1318/1 area O. 959 hectare and for injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the said rights. The Court while dismissing the suit in default did not consider the question whether any other person should be substituted in place of the plaintiffs having the same interest as per Order 1 Rule 8 (5) C. P. C. ( 5 ) ARUN Agarwal and three others filed civil Suit No. 57-A of 2000 on 18-10-2000 for declaration that the plaintiffs and the general public of Katni have existing easementary right over the tank and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 30-3-1999 is null and void. They also claimed the relief of permanent injunction. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. for temporary injunction was also filed. That has been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 4-12-2000 but that has been allowed in appeal as stated at the outset. ( 6 ) THE reasons given by the trial Court for rejection of the application are : (a) the S. D. O. has deleted the entry of the wajib-ul-arz by his order dated 2-5-1979 and that order has been ultimately approved by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 30-3-1999. (b) the dismissal of the earlier civil suit in default, (c) compromise dated 7-4-1993 by Arun Kumar, Salabh and Jalaj with the defendant No. 1, (d) the case of the defendants No. 1 to 4 has been supported by the reply filed by the Tehsildar, Katni on behalf of the State Government and (e) they have obtained the permission of the Municipal Corporation, Katni for construction of the building. ( 7 ) IN appeal the temporary injunction has been issued against the defendants No. 1 to 4 and the reasons assigned by the appellate Court are (a) the tank was being used for Nistar from the year 1907-08 and the order of the S. D. O. was passed in 1979 without giving any notice to the persons who to be adversely affected by that order and therefore, prima facie such order is not legal and does not take away the rights of the villagers, (b) the Additional Commissioner has noted this defect in the order of the S. D. O. but brushed it aside on the ground that it is of technical nature, (c) the plaintiffs as representatives of the public have a right to establish the nistar rights in the tank before the Civil court and the orders of the Revenue Courts do not come in their way in doing so, (d) the dismissal of the previous suit has no effect on the maintainability of the present suit, (e) the suit is prima facie within limitation and it has been so held by the trial court also, (f) in case the defendants No. 1 to 4 are allowed to level the tank and raise the marketing complex on that land the subject matter of dispute would disappear and it would be impossible to bring the tank to its original position if the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore it is necessary to maintain the statusquo till the decision of the suit. ( 8 ) THE point for determination is whether the order of temporary injunction passed by the appellate Court should contijnue till the decision of the suit or it should be vacated. ( 9 ) THE principles which should be kept in mind while considering the application for interim injunction are well settled. In Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 : AIR 1993 SC 276 these principles have been exhaustively restated by the Supreme Court. Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. primarily concerns with the preservation of the property in dispute till legal rights are adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. primarily concerns with the preservation of the property in dispute till legal rights are adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. In other words, the Court in exercise of the power of granting ad interim injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the Court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the Court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant; (2) the Court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial ; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it. It has been further observed that the phrases "prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable injury" are not rhetoric phrases for incanlation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad situations presented by men's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. ( 10 ) REITERATING the same principles it has been again observed in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Company (1995) 5 SCC 545 : AIR 1995 SC 2372 that the Court must weigh one need against another and determine where the"balance of convenience" lies". It has been stressed in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corporation (1995) 3 SCC 33 : (1995 AIR SCW 1439) that the plaintiff must have a "strong prima facie case. " ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for both the sides have been heard at length. It has been stressed in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corporation (1995) 3 SCC 33 : (1995 AIR SCW 1439) that the plaintiff must have a "strong prima facie case. " ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for both the sides have been heard at length. ( 12 ) IT is not in dispute that from the year 1907 the tank is recorded as such and according to the wajib-ul-arz the villagers have the customary right to have bath and clean clothes in this tank. Their cattle also bathe and drink water in this tank. these rights were recorded in the Khatuani of the year 1954-55. The Additional Collector who passed the order in 1965 for recording the tank in the name of T. C. Bajan imposed a restriction on his right and that restriction was that the villagers would continue to have nistqar rights in this tank. This rider on the rights of an individual was consistent with the entry in the wajib-ul-arz and a balance was struck between the two opposing rights on this tank. The nistar rights granted to the villagers could not be lightly whittled down by the S. D. O. in 1979. As mentioned above nistar rights of the villagers continued to be recorded up to the year 1978-79. This was a recognition of the rights of the villagers as per S. 242 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Sub-Divisional Officer as per S. 242 (5) of the Code has been clothed with the power to modify an entry in the wajib-ul-arz on any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-sec. (5) of S. 242 of the Code. Clauses (b) to (e) were not available to the S. D. O. in the present case. He acted under clause (a) while passing the order in the year 1979. According to this clause the entry could be modified on the ground that "all persons interested in such entry wish to have it modified". There is a definite finding of the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 30-3-1999 that there was no prior intimation to the villagers for deletion of the entry regarding their nisar rights. Applicant T. C. Bajan was interested in the deletion of this entry and therefore it was necessary to consult the villagers also whether they also wish to have this entry modified. Applicant T. C. Bajan was interested in the deletion of this entry and therefore it was necessary to consult the villagers also whether they also wish to have this entry modified. It was not a simple formality or a "technical irregularity" as observed by the Additional Commissioner. It was a matter of great substance because the entry as per clause (a) could not have been modified without the consent of the villagers. There is no provision in S. 242 empowering the S. D. O. to delete or modify the entry on the ground that the water of the tank has become dirty or polluted or Nistar has come to an end. Therefore, the order of the S. D. O. which is the sheet-anchor of the case of the defendants No. 1 to 4, prima facie suffers from this basic defect. If that order of the S. D. O. is kept aside for amoment, the plaintiffs do have a strong prima facie case in their favour. The appellate Court while granting the injunction has rightly observed that the status quo of the tank must be preserved till the decision of the suit as in case it is levelled and the marketing complex is constructed thereon, it would not be possible to restore the status quo ante if the plaintiffs are able to prove their customary rights in this tank in the civil suit. ( 13 ) THERE were several other points raised by the learned counsel for both the sides in support of their respective cases which are to be considered at the time of final decision of the suit. It will not be proper to decide those points at this stage. There should be no quarrel with the proposition that the property which is the subject matter of dispute in this suit must be preserved in its present condition. The balance of convenience therefore oies on the side of the plaintiffs. The trial Court can be directed to expedite the trial of the case and the defendants No. 1 to 4 should also in all fairness wait till the adjudication of the dispute which has arisen in the suit. If the defendants raise the structure without the settlement of the dispute and if it is required to be pulled down as a result or final decision in the civil suit they would have to suffer heavy and immense loss. If the defendants raise the structure without the settlement of the dispute and if it is required to be pulled down as a result or final decision in the civil suit they would have to suffer heavy and immense loss. Therefore, it is in their interest also that they should wait for sometime. It has been argued on behalf of these defendants that the present suit is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit in default. On the other hand it is pointed out that the earlier suit, if it was a representative suit could not be dismissed nor could there by any compromise in view of sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 8 of Order 1. As already observed these and many other serious and thorny questions which have been raised by both the sides will be considered at the time of final decision of the suit after recording the evidence and till such decision the tank must be maintained as it is without any construction thereon. The trial Court had not exercised its discretion properly in rejecting the application for temporary injunction and that error has been rectified by the appellate Court by granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. It is writ large that if the interim injunction is not granted the inhabitants of the locality would suffer substantial and irreparable injury. ( 14 ) THE revision is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of this civil suit on priority. Any observation made by this Court or by the appellate Court is only tentative for the purpose of deciding the application for temporary injunction. The trial Court will decide the issues involved in this suit uninfluenced by any such observation. Revision dismissed. .