JUDGEMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral): This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-defendant against an order passed on 18th June, 2005 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, in Civil Suit No. 55/1 of 2004 filed by respondent No. 1-plaiintiff. The order dated 18th June, 2005 impugned in this petition has been passed in CMA No. 36/6 of 2004 being an application for grant of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151, CPC in the aforesaid suit. By the impugned order, the learned Court below directed the parties in the aforesaid suit, being the petitioner-defendant herein, respondent No.1- plaintiff herein and proforma defendant-respondent No.2 herein to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land until the disposal of the suit. 2. It appears that between the parties dispute arose with respect to right and title of respondent-plaintiff Roshan Lal Bhardwaj qua the land in question as well as whether at any point of time before the filing of the suit (Suit No. 55/1 of 2004) he had been dispossessed from the land in question by the petitioner-defendant. The contention of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is that on 28th April, 2004 the petitioner-defendant had dispossessed him from the suit land even though as on that date he was the tenant of the property in question and was in its lawful possession. The plaintiff-respondent No.1s grievance, therefore, was that since he was illegally dispossessed from the property in question on 28th April, 2004 and since he had filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for claiming back the possession, the defendant-petitioner be restrained from raising any construction on or around the suit land, There are few important facts which deserve to be noticed in this case for their relevance to the issues involved for consideration by this Court. 3. Before filing suit No. 55/1 of 2004 from out of which the order impugned in this petition has arisen, plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed suit No. 14/1 of 2004, which at the relevant time was pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Shimla. 3. Before filing suit No. 55/1 of 2004 from out of which the order impugned in this petition has arisen, plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed suit No. 14/1 of 2004, which at the relevant time was pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Shimla. It is the undisputed case of the parties that this suit also related to the same subject matter, viz., the same piece of land, as formed the subject matter of Suit No. 55/1 of 2004. In this suit also the contention of plaintiff-respondent No.1 was that he was the tenant of the property in question and was in its possession and accordingly he had prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant-petitioner. In this suit also the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had filed an application for temporary injunction. This application, however, was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 22nd May, 2004. While dismissing the temporary injunction application the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 14/1 of 2004 clearly held that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 before the purchase of the property in question by defendant-petitioner was neither its tenant nor was in its possession. Actually the Court went as far as to hold that as a result of an eviction petition filed against him earlier the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had been evicted from the property in question. The following observations in the order dated 22nd May, 2004 are apposite and I quote:- "3. The contention of the applicant is that he is a tenant of one Sushil Chand Puri with respect to 1 living room, I bathroom, 1 kitchen, 1 closet and 1 bed room and one balcony in the first floor of Irwin Lodge, Chaura Maidan, Shimla-4 and 1 room in the ground floor of Irwin Lodge, Chaura Maidan since 1974. As apart from the accommodation in the first floor and ground floor the applicant has been a tenant of Sh.Sushil Chand with respect of the Lawn measuring about one and half Biswas i.e. 40 feet x 13-1/2 adjacent to the first floor of Irwin Lodge, Chaura Maidan, Shimla-4 in Khasra No. 635, Mohal Raj Bhavan, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla. As apart from the accommodation in the first floor and ground floor the applicant has been a tenant of Sh.Sushil Chand with respect of the Lawn measuring about one and half Biswas i.e. 40 feet x 13-1/2 adjacent to the first floor of Irwin Lodge, Chaura Maidan, Shimla-4 in Khasra No. 635, Mohal Raj Bhavan, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla. On the other hand, it is a clear cut submission of the respondent that the applicant was the tenant of Sushil Chand occupied- i.e. 1 living room, 1 bed room, kitchen, 1 closet, 1 bathroom and 1 balcony as per the cause instituted by the previous owner Sushil Chand against the applicant in the year 1976. It is argued by the Id. Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has been evicted by order of Id. Rent Controller (1), Shimla dated 31.3.1978 on the ground of arrears of rent. Therefore, form the cause (sic) perusal of the rent petition filed by Sushil Chand previous owner against the applicant, which is on the record and the order of the Id. Rent Controller, Shimla dated 31.3.1978, which is also on the record shows that the petitioner Roshan Lal Bhardwaj was ejected from the premises as first floor of Irwin Lodge Shimla consisting of 1 living room, 1 bed room, 1 kitchen, 1 closet, 1 bathroom and 1 balcony for arrear of rent. There is no reference that the Lawn adjacent to the Irwin Lodge was in the possession of the petitioner, nor there is any order of the Rent Controller to vacate the same. The applicant has miserably failed to establish at this stage that the lawn adjacent to Irwin Lodge measuring 40 feet x 13 feet in kahsra No. 635 was tenanted to him by the original owner Satish Chand. On the other hand, the sale deed executed by Sushil Chand on 12.4.2004 in favour of the respondent Sanjay Sood about khasra No. 635/4/1 measuring 223.30 sq. mete is on the record. From perusal of the sale deed, it also shows that the possession of the plot has been handed over to the purchaser Sanjay Sood. Secondly, Jamabandi on the record 1999-2000- shows that khasra No. 635/4/1 measuring 223.30 sq. meter is in the ownership of Sushil Chand and vide mutation No. 64 he sold to Sanjay Sood and mutation was duly sanctioned. 4. Secondly, Jamabandi on the record 1999-2000- shows that khasra No. 635/4/1 measuring 223.30 sq. meter is in the ownership of Sushil Chand and vide mutation No. 64 he sold to Sanjay Sood and mutation was duly sanctioned. 4. It is absolutely clear that the applicant has failed to establish that he is a tenant of the lawn measuring 40 feet x 13 feet adjacent to Irwin Lodge in Khasra No. 635. Secondly the applicant has filed to establish that he is in possession of the aforesaid lawn. On the contrary the plot of the khasra No. 635/4/1 measuring 223.30 sq. feet were sold to Respondent Sanjay Sood and possession was handed over. Thereafter, it was duly mutated. From the aforesaid discussion the applicant has failed to establish at this stage prima facieness, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. Therefore, this application is dismissed. However, my findings shall have no effect in the merit of the case. It be tagged with the main case file." 4, Agaisnt the aforesaid order dated 22nd May, 2004, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. This appeal was dismissed on 23rd July, 2004. While dismissing the appeal the learned Additional District Judge observed as under:- "In the circumstances where the plaintiff alleges to have been dispossessed from the suit land by the defendant, he can decidedly not be granted the interdictory relief he prayed for. He having already filed a suit for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the injunctive application has become infructuous. The impugned order dismissing the injunctive application, therefore, deserves to be upheld. It may be made clear that the reasons for upholding the impugned order are not the ones discussed therein, but are the alleged is possession of the plaintiff and his having brought the aforementioned suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,. The point under discussion is, therefore, held in the negative." 5. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that the aforesaid order dated 23rd July, 2004 was not challenged by him in any superior Court and that, therefore, it has assumed finality. 6. The point under discussion is, therefore, held in the negative." 5. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that the aforesaid order dated 23rd July, 2004 was not challenged by him in any superior Court and that, therefore, it has assumed finality. 6. Another aspect, which cannot be ignored or overlooked and which is very germane to the controversy involved in this case and for determination of the points forming the subject matter of the said controversy is that before the passing of the order dated 18 June, 2005 impugned in this petition, an earlier attempt by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 in obtaining the temporary injunction in the same suit (Suit No. 55/1 of 2004) against the petitioner-defendant had not succeeded. There is a slight chequered history relating to this aspect of the matter. 7. The learned trial Court vide order passed on 14th July, 2004 had dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the aforesaid Suit No. 55/1 of 2004. While dismissing the said temporary injunction application in Suit No. 55/1 of 2004, the learned trial Court took note of the fact of the dismissal of the temporary injunction application in Suit No. 14/1 of 2004 as well as dismissal of the appeal filed by the plaintiff -respondent No.1, and, more importantly the fact that in the application instituted by him in Civil Suit No. 55/1 of 2004 he had concealed these material facts. The order dated 14th July, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (junior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, was challenged by the plaintiff -respondent No.1 in an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 28th September, 2004 allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1. This order, however, was challenged by the petitioner-defendant in CMPMO No. 338 of 2004 in this Court. Vide judgment dated 21st February, 2005 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, it was held that in a suit filed under Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, no appeal against an order passed by the trial Court in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was maintainable. Vide judgment dated 21st February, 2005 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, it was held that in a suit filed under Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, no appeal against an order passed by the trial Court in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was maintainable. By thus holding that an appeal was not maintainable against an order passed by a trial Court in an application for temporary injunction in a suit filed under Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, this Court in CMPMO No. 338 of 2004 thus categorically held that the order dated 14th July, 2004 was not appealable and, therefore, the order passed on 28th September, 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge setting aside the order dated 14th July, 2004 was held to be bad in law. After holding thus, however, this Court went on to observe that it was open to the plaintiff- respondent No.1 to take recourse to such proceedings as would be permissible under law against the aforesaid order dated 14th July, 2004. 8. Because of the setting aside of the order dated 28th September, 2004 on the aforesaid found by this Court in CMPMO No. 338 of 2004 and based on the aforesaid liberty granted by this Court, plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed Civil Revision No. 29 of 2005 in this Court challenging the order dated 14th July, 2004. This Court vide judgment dated 12th May, 2005 in Civil Revision No. 29 of 2005 quashed and set aside the order dated 14 July, 2004 and remanded the matter to the trial Court with directions to re-examine the whole case afresh without being impressed either by its earlier order dated 14th July, 2004 or the order passed by the High Court on 21st February, 2005 in CPPMO No. 338 of 2004 or by the contents of the order dated 12th May, 2005 itself. The following observations with respect to the aforesaid directions being apposite are quoted in verbatim:- "in view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside, thereby restoring application under order XXVIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to its original number and date on the file of the trial Court. Case is now remanded back to the learned Court below with the direction to re-examine the whole case afresh without being impressed either by its earlier order of 14th July, 2004 or of this Court dated 21st February, 2005 in CMPMO 338 of 2004, as well as by this order as it has been passed without examining the merits of the case." 9. What is significant is that this Court while quashing the order dated 14th July, 2004 and while remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration directed the trial Court not to be impressed (influenced) by the order dated 14th July, 2004 or by the order passed by the High Court on 21st February, 2005 in CMPMO No. 338 of 2004 or by the order dated 12th may, 2005. It is very important and vital for the disposal of this case that this Court in Civil Revision No.29 of 2005 did not at all either disapprove the order dated 22nd May, 2004 passed by the trial Court in Suit No. 14/1 of2004 or the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23rd July, 2004 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1-S/14 of 2004 upholding the aforesaid order dated 22nd May, 2004. Neither did this Court disapprove the aforesaid two orders nor did this Court direct the trial Court not to be impressed or influenced by the aforesaid two orders. 10. The aforesaid two orders had thus assumed finality in law. In the aforesaid two orders it was clearly held that well before 28th April, 2004 plaintiff-respondent No.1 had not been in possession of the property in question nor was he the tenant thereof. This finding being a finding having assumed finality in law was binding on everyone. In the face of this finding, the question, which might thus arise for consideration in Suit No. 55/1 of 2004 would be whether it was open to plaintiff-respondent No.1 to allege that he was dispossessed by the petitioner-defendant on 28th April, 2004, coupled with this allegation would also be the effect of the order obtained by the petitioner-defendant in Civil Suit No. 34/1 of 2004 filed by him for permanent injunction against plaintiff-respondent No.1. In the said suit he had obtained an order of temporary injunction on 24th April, 2004.This suit, whoever, was withdrawn on 28th June, 2004.The allegation of plaintiff-respondent No.1 that in the garb of executing the temporary injunction order dated 24th April, 2004 in Civil Suit No. 34/1 of 2004 he was dispossessed from the property in question would be a matter of course for consideration in Civil Suit No. 55/1 of 2004, but in the facts and circumstances of the case as have been elaborately spelt out earlier in this judgment one cannot ignore the import of the orders dated 22nd May, 2004 and 23r July, 2004. Prima facie, therefore, it does appear that perhaps the plaintiff-respondent No.1 could not hold petitioner-defendant guilty of forcibly dispossessing him form the property in question. This issue, however, will be examined threadbare in suit No. 55/1 of 2004, of course based upon the evidence that might be led in the suit by the parties. 11.Mr. K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant drew my attention to the copy of the memo appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 against the order dated 22nd May, 2004, a reading whereof reveals that even as on the date of the filing of the appeal on 28th May, 2004 the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had not disclosed that he had been dispossessed from the property in question. Similarly, Mr. Sood also drew my attention to the copy of written statement filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the civil Suit filed by the petitioner-defendant. A perusal of this written statement also shows that as on 3rd May, 2004, the date when it was filed, respondent No.1 had not disclosed that he had been dispossessed from the property,. What is the relevancy of these facts of course would be a matter for the consideration of the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 55/1 of 2004 and even though I wish to offer no comments on these aspects, but would like to observe that prima facie these facts do indicate that perhaps plaintiff-respondent No.1 would be hard-pressed to prove that he in fact was dispossessed forcibly by the petitioner-defendant on 28th April, 2005. 12.As far as the question of temporary injunction is concerned, I feel satisfied that plaintiff-respondent No.1 has failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour and, therefore, granting temporary injunction in his favour directing the parties to maintain status quo would run counter to the well established principles of law. Also the balance of convenience in this case cannot be said to be in favour of plaintiff- respondent No.1 because admittedly prior to the order of grant of temporary injunction petitioner-defendant had started raising construction and had actually erected some columns and some to her structures. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with all the consequences subject to the petitioner -defendant filing an undertaking before the trial Court within two weeks from today to the effect that if ultimately in the suit a direction is issued by the trial Court adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner shall abide by and implement this direction and if in any such direction the trial Court orders the petitioner to demolish any structure raised upon the suit land, the petitioner shall demolish such structure and not claim any compensation form the plaintiff- respondent No.1 in lieu thereof. 14. Petition allowed. No order as to costs. CMP No. 219/2005 In view of the disposal of the main petition, the present application is also disposed of. The interim order dated 5th July, 2005 shall stand vacated.