JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. - This application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the applicant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) seeking interim relief of restraining the defendants/respondents (hereafter referred to as the defendants) from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff or dispossessing him from Flats No. 1, 8, 9 and 5 constructed by the plaintiff over the suit land and also further restraining the defendants from selling, transferring or encumbering the suit property in any manner. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this application are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and a decree for Rs. 17,14,446/-. The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that it is a construction company and the defendants are the owners of the suit land, measuring 595 square meters, situate in Brock Hurst Chhota Shimla. The parties entered into a collaboration agreement on 28.1.2000 whereby it was agreed that the plaintiff will carry out the construction of the building on the suit land and 75% of the construction area of flats will be that of the plaintiff and the remaining 25% will be owned by the defendants. The facilitate the execution of the agreement, irrevocable general power of attorney by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff was also agreed to be executed and the plaintiff was to deposit a sum of rupees five lacs in the name of the owners. The plaintiff claims to have complied with all the terms and conditions of the collaboration agreement and out of the flats constructed over the suit land, it sold Flat Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 and only Flat No. 5 remains to be sold. Flat Nos. 1, 8 and 9 have to go to the defendants as owners as per the said agreement. It is also claimed that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the collaboration agreement, the defendants have to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff on account of return of security deposits, expenses incurred in re-construction of the retaining walls etc. and unless the suit amount is paid, the defendants are not entitled for possession of Flats No. 1, 8 and 9. and unless the suit amount is paid, the defendants are not entitled for possession of Flats No. 1, 8 and 9. The defendants however, failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the collaboration agreement which resulted in the delay of the execution of the work and incurring of other expenses by the plaintiff and the failure of the defendants to execute the irrevocable general power of attorney has also led to complications in final execution of the agreement. It is further averred that non-compliance of the terms of the agreement by the defendants evidently is with the intention of interfering with the transfer of the ownership of the flats. It is further the case of the plaintiff that Flats Nos. 1, 8 and 9 have fallen to the share of the defendants whereas Flat No. 5 has been allotted to the plaintiff itself. However, till the due amounts are cleared, the defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the aforesaid flats which they are bent upon to do. Hence the suit. 3. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff had preferred this application seeking the interim relief on the premises that the defendants are threatening to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over Flats No. 1, 8, 9 and 5 or to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom without paying the due amounts and in case they are permitted to do so, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated and the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff as no harm or prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants if the interim relief as prayed for is granted. 4. The defendants have contested the suit on the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable, that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, that the plaintiff has committed various irregularities and illegalities in the construction of the flats and is not in possession of Flats No. 1, 8 and 9 which are in possession of the defendants as per the terms and conditions of the collaboration agreement. On merits also, the claim of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint, has been denied. 5. On merits also, the claim of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint, has been denied. 5. The defendants have also filed reply to the application wherein the prayer for interim relief has been contested on the grounds similar to those as taken in the written statement. 6. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the stand as taken in the application. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 8. There is no dispute that out of the constructed flats, Flat Nos. 1, 8 and 9 have been allotted to the defendants as per the collaboration agreement between the parties which prima facie means that the defendants has a right to be in possession of these flats. The plaintiff is resisting the claim of the defendants to be in possession of the flats allotted them on the ground that the defendants are liable to pay the amount as claimed in the suit to it. Thus, the plaintiff itself has worked out its claim against the defendants on the basis of which it is suing the defendants in terms of money. 9. It is well settled that to succeed in a claim for injunction, whether temporary or permanent, party seeking such relief has to show (i) that it has a prima facie case, (ii) that the balance of convenience is in favour of grant of the relief prayed for, and (iii) in the event of refusal of the injunction prayed for, it will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of the money. Unless these three ingredients are shown existing, injunction which is a discretionary relief, cannot be and should not be granted. 10. In the case in hand, as already stated hereinabove, the sum and substance of the claim of the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the application is that the defendants deserve to be restrained from interfering with the flats in question because a certain sum of money is yet recoverable from them for which a decree has also been prayed for in the plaint. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that in the event of refusal of the temporary injunction with respect to Flats No. 1, 8 and 9 which admittedly had been allotted to the defendants, any irreparable loss is going to be caused to the plaintiff. If so, the relief prayed for in respect of the aforesaid three flats cannot be granted to the plaintiff at this stage. 11. In so far as Flat No. 5 is concerned, that stands allotted to the plaintiff according to the averments made in the plaint which has not been specifically disputed in the pleadings of the defendants. 12. In view of the above discussion, and the conclusions, ad interim order 3.9.2004 directing the parties to maintain status quo qua possession of the suit property is modified to the extent that the order is vacated qua Flat Nos. 1, 8 and 9 and will cease to be operative to that extent. Rest of the interim directions as contained in the order dated 3.9.2004 regarding status quo qua the possession of the remaining suit property, shall remain operative. 13. The application is disposed of in terms of the above orders.