P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE above noted four Civil Revisions though not noted in the order-sheets, were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment which shall abide the result in each of the Civil Revision. ( 2 ) OPPOSITE party members are the plaintiffs in Title Suit Nos. 23, 22, 24 and 25, all of 2000 and petitioners in the above noted civil revisions are the respective defendants. In such suits the father and other brothers of the plaintiffs also figured as defendants. All the aforesaid suits were instituted and are pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Angul. Land vide plot No. 4724 of Khata No. 814 in Mouza Turang measuring a total area of Ac. 0. 28 decimals is the subject matter of dispute in Title Suit Nos. 23 and 22 of 2000. In title Suit No. 23 of 2000 the extent of the disputed area is Ac. 0. 08 decimals whereas the remaining 20 decimals is the disputed area in Title Suit No. 22 of 2000. Land in plot No. 4725 of Khata No. 521 in Mouza Turang measuring a total area of Ac. 0. 07 decimals is the disputed plot. An area of Ac. 0. 05 decimals, i. e. , Ac. 0. 02 and 1/2 decimals each is the disputed area in Title Suit Nos. 24 and 25 of 2000. Khata No. 814 has been recorded in the name of the father of the plaintiffs measuring a total area of Ac. 6. 63 decimals. All such land have been recorded as agricultural land. Khata No. 521 with respect to plot No. 4725 has been recorded in the name of one Banchhanidhi Das with note of forcible possession in the name of Sansar Behera (father of the plaintiffs ). ( 3 ) SO far as plot No. 4724 of Khata No. 814 is concerned, plaintiffs have claimed that to be the joint family property in the family of Sansara Behera. With respect to plot No. 4725 of Khata No. 521 plaintiffs have stated that, that land was acquired by their father in exchange of a portion of the ancestral property and notwithstanding the note of forcible possession in the R. O. R. that was a part and parcel of the joint family property in the family of Sansar Behera. With respect to plot No. 4725 of Khata No. 521 plaintiffs have stated that, that land was acquired by their father in exchange of a portion of the ancestral property and notwithstanding the note of forcible possession in the R. O. R. that was a part and parcel of the joint family property in the family of Sansar Behera. ( 4 ) IT is the admitted position on record that the outsiders-defendants, i. e. , the petitioners before this Court instituted separate suits in the following manner :i) Petitioner in CRP No. 389 of 2000 - Title Suit No. 632 of 1998. ii) Petitioner in CRP No. 390 of 2000 - Title Suit No. 633 of 1998. iii) Petitioners in CRP No. 393 of 2000 - Title Suit No. 637 of 1998. iv) Petitioners in CRP No. 394 of 2000 - Title Suit No. 631 of 1998. The disputed suit property in such suits are corresponding to the self-same property which is in dispute in the above noted Title Suits filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties. In the aforesaid suits of the year 1998 plaintiffs in such suits (petitioners in the civil revisions) entered into compromise with Sansar Behera and accordingly decree was passed declaring right, title, interest and possession in favour of the respective plaintiffs in each of the suits as per the decision of the Civil Court in Lok Adalat held on 20-9-1998. It is also the admitted position on record that after such decrees petitioners have been mutated with respect to the respective land covered by the compromise decree and they are paying rents. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the plaintiffs (opposite parties in the revisions) that all the aforesaid properties are joint family property of Sansar Behera and his sons which includes the plaintiffs and therefore the compromise decrees which the petitioners obtained was without the knowledge and consent of Sansar Behera and by manipulating records and therefore such decrees are illegal and non-operative. Plaintiffs have further stated that in the absence of the co-sharers as party to the compromise, such compromise decree is not binding on the plaintiffs. They have also pleaded that notwithstanding the aforesaid compromise decrees and mutation the defendant/petitioners have not acquired title and possession and such properties are still under the possession of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have further stated that in the absence of the co-sharers as party to the compromise, such compromise decree is not binding on the plaintiffs. They have also pleaded that notwithstanding the aforesaid compromise decrees and mutation the defendant/petitioners have not acquired title and possession and such properties are still under the possession of the plaintiffs. Accordingly plaintiffs claim for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. As noted in the orders of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in different Misc. Cases (u/o 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC) the defendant/petitioners have denied to the allegation of collusiveness and fraud in respect of compromise decrees. While stating about genuineness and validity of such compromise decrees they also claim about their valid title and possession over the respective disputed area (suit lands ). It is also noted by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) that in their written statements as defendants Sansar Behera and two of his sons have stated that both the plaintiffs are away from the family and the suit village since long and they are living at distant places and they never came to possess any part of the family property. Sansar Behera has also pleaded about effecting the compromise with petitioners. ( 6 ) MISC. case Nos. 38,37, 39 and 40, all of 2000 were the original applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, which were filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties respectively against the petitioners in the above noted civil revisions. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and pleadings and uncontroverted contention of the revision-petitioners that they have proceeded with making construction of house after obtaining requisite permission from the Tahsildar, learned Civil Judge did not find the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly dismissed the Misc. Case as per separate orders passed by him on 29-8-2000. Plaintiffs therefore preferred Misc. Appeals Nos. 14, 13, 15 and 16, all of 2000, in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Angul as against the above noted petitioners respectively. All the Misc. Appeals were disposed by learned Addl. District Judge separately vide the impugned judgments delivered on 2-11-2000. Learned Addl. Case as per separate orders passed by him on 29-8-2000. Plaintiffs therefore preferred Misc. Appeals Nos. 14, 13, 15 and 16, all of 2000, in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Angul as against the above noted petitioners respectively. All the Misc. Appeals were disposed by learned Addl. District Judge separately vide the impugned judgments delivered on 2-11-2000. Learned Addl. District Judge took note of the ratio in the case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Private Ltd. , 1990 Supp SCC 727, wherein, as noted by him, the Apex Court has propounded that "the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of the first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principle of law relating to grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. " notwithstanding that he interfered with the factual finding and reversed the order and granted temporary injunction on the grounds that learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) did not record any specific finding on the three ingredients, i. e. , existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and that learned Civil Judge did not discuss documents filed by the parties. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners argued that it appears from the order of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) that he has not only discussed about the facts involved in the case but also considered relevancy and implications of the documents filed by both the parties to record the finding that the factum of possession prima facie is available in favour of the defendants/petitioners and that statement of Sansar Behera falsifies allegation of obtaining compromise decree in the alleged manner and therefore plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of temporary injunction. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that non-user of the term 'prima facie case', 'balance of convenience' and 'irreparable injury' does not invalidate the order of the trial Court when he has considered each of such aspect. He argued that by mere user of such term the erroneous finding on fact, non-discussion of relevant documents available on record and non-consideration of the implication of the written statement filed by Sansar Behera makes the order of the appellate Court vulnerable being infested with perversity and improper exercise of jurisdiction. He argued that by mere user of such term the erroneous finding on fact, non-discussion of relevant documents available on record and non-consideration of the implication of the written statement filed by Sansar Behera makes the order of the appellate Court vulnerable being infested with perversity and improper exercise of jurisdiction. He further argued that factum of possession of the disputed property is prima facie proved by the defendants/petitioners through mutation proceeding, filing of rent receipts and obtaining permission for converting the agricultural land for construction of houses. As against that, when the plaintiffs have nothing to place except the record of rights which is recorded in the name of their father, and their father as the co-defendant has substantially admitted to the claim of the defendants/petitioners, therefore, by no stretch of imagination a reasonable and prudent man can record a finding that merely because the plaintiffs have raised a dispute, therefore, they are entitled to temporary injunction notwithstanding the mischief behind that relief and loss and damage which has occurred therefrom to the defendants/petitioners. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed to set aside the order of the appellate Court. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties on the other hand argued that the land recorded in the name of Sansar Behera being the joint family property in which the plaintiff have a share, therefore, notwithstanding the written statement of Sansar Behera plaintiffs' claim cannot be defeated for a share in the suit property. Once that right of the plaintiffs is made out, it will be against the interest of justice to allow the defendants/petitioners to proceed with construction of houses on agricultural land. Accordingly, he whole-heartedly supported the impugned judgment of learned Addl. District Judge. ( 9 ) AS noted in a preceding paragraph, the ratio in the case of Wander Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727) (supra) clearly gives the guideline that a superior Court is not to interfere with a reasonable finding by showing its superiority or higher position in the hierarchy of the adjudicatory process. The criteria for interference have been indicated. In that respect, learned Addl. District Judge has wrongly recorded in the impugned judgments that learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) did not discuss or consider the documents filed by the parties. As rightly argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Civil Judge (Sr. The criteria for interference have been indicated. In that respect, learned Addl. District Judge has wrongly recorded in the impugned judgments that learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) did not discuss or consider the documents filed by the parties. As rightly argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) has discussed in detail the documents and the implications arising therefrom while considering whether or not to grant temporary injunction. Learned Addl. District Judge also went wrong in interfering with the orders of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) merely on the ground that learned Civil Judge did not use the 'prima facie case', 'balance of convenience' and 'irreparable loss and injury' while rejecting the applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC. It is not the mandatory requirement of law to note such legal terms in an order. On the other hand, the requirement of law is to consider such aspects and to decide the case accordingly. It appears from the orders of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) that he considered all such aspects and thereafter rejected the prayer for temporary injunction. ( 10 ) APART from that, this Court also finds merit in the criticism to the order of the appellate Court relating to the perversal approach inasmuch as learned Addl. District Judge did not at all consider the implications of the written statement filed by Sansar Behera, the father of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court did not take into consideration that plot No. 4724 is one out of 38 plots recorded in the name of Sansar Behera and even if that property shall be regarded as joint family property, then also plaintiffs' share does not remain unprotected from out of the joint family property in the event of refusal of injunction over plot No. 4724. So far as the dispute relating to plot No. 4725 is concerned, the appellate Court even did not take care to note the case of the plaintiffs in the manner the same has been noted in the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division ). So far as that plot is concerned, as already noted, plaintiffs have claimed about their father getting that land in exchange and that being regularised in the consolidation proceeding. On the other hand, the copy of the R. O. R. indicates a note of possession in the name of Sansar Behera. Division ). So far as that plot is concerned, as already noted, plaintiffs have claimed about their father getting that land in exchange and that being regularised in the consolidation proceeding. On the other hand, the copy of the R. O. R. indicates a note of possession in the name of Sansar Behera. The case of exchange, as pleaded by the plaintiffs, is not admitted by the defendants and nonetheless plaintiffs have not filed any document in support of their plea. Learned Addl. District Judge also lost sight of the assertion made by Sansar Behera that plaintiffs are not staying with him nor possessing the family property and they are staying far away at distant places. The claim of ouster of the plaintiffs advanced by Sansar Behera may or may not be acceptable, but that pleading certainly indicates prima facie a case of non-possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs. Learned Addl. District Judge did not consider all such sequences and relevant facts which are very much available on record and which were considered by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division ). Therefore learned Addl. District Judge reversed the order of the Court below whimsically, arbitrarily and by improper exercise of the jurisdiction. ( 11 ) THE pleading as set up by the plaintiffs undoubtedly makes out a prima facie case, because they have raised their claim of right, title and interest as members of joint family of which Sansar Behera has been claimed as the 'karta'. When admittedly Sansar Behera alone entered into a compromise, the question which is to be considered by the trial Court is as to whether the property was joint family property and, if so, whether Sansar Behera acted as the 'karta' to enter into a compromise in that respect, whether he had such authority and competency and what consequence shall emerge from that. If for any reason the compromise decree shall be found to be invalid, then naturally the defendants' right over the property will be affected notwithstanding the mutation and permission granted by the Tahsildar. As stated above, because of all such fact situations a prima facie case is available in favour of the plaintiffs. While coming to the question of balance of convenience the material on record does not indicate that plaintiffs are in possession of the property or for that matter their father is in possession of the property. As stated above, because of all such fact situations a prima facie case is available in favour of the plaintiffs. While coming to the question of balance of convenience the material on record does not indicate that plaintiffs are in possession of the property or for that matter their father is in possession of the property. On the other hand, the contention of Sansar Behera in his written statement coupled with the claim of the defendants/petitioners and the mutation and permission order granted by the Tahsildar indicate possession prima facie in favour of the defendants/petitioners. It is the settled position of law that a bona fide possessor of a landed property cannot be dispossessed by an order of temporary injunction. About six acres of land have been recorded in the name of Sansar Behera. Thus plaintiffs will not be deprived of a legitimate share if they will prove their right, title and interest over the disputed holding. For the reasons indicated above, balance of convenience does not lean in favour of the plaintiffs. In the same context the factum of irreparable loss and injury also does not support the plaintiffs in the event of construction of houses undertaken on the suit plots by the petitioners. A homestead land has a better potency and better market value. If at all plaintiffs' right over the suit holding will be decided by the Court, then there is no guarantee that the aforesaid two suit plots will be allotted to their share and under such circumstance the claim of irreparable loss and injury is a myth at this stage. ( 12 ) THE aforesaid aspects were totally lost sight of by learned Addl. District Judge and therefore he passed the impuged orders granting temporary injunction against the petitioners and in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties. Under such circumstance the order passed by learned Addl. District Judge in each of the Misc. Appeals is set aside and all the Civil Revisions are allowed accordingly. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation so far as this forum is concerned. Hearing fee is assessed at contested scale. Order accordingly. 2002