JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Case No. 9(T)/2007 arising out of Title Suit No. 7(T)/2007. The revision petition is also directed against the order dated 26.6.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner in CR (Misc.) (Civil Appeal) Case No. 1(T)/2009 affirming the said order dated 16.2.2009. By the said impugned orders, the ad-interim injunction earlier granted in favour of the Plaintiff Petitioner has been vacated on the ground that the Plaintiff Petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the suit. 2. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs with the following prayer: In the premises, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court would be pleased to pass a decree of: (i) Declaration that the Defendants or any one of them or any their agents/associates have no right to disturb the ownership and peaceful possession of the suit land belonging to the Plaintiff and his other family members either by way of issuing any order/orders or by causing damage to the suit land in any way whatsoever or by any other means whatsoever; (ii) A perpetual and permanent injunction in terms of prayer (i) above ; (iii) To pass interim orders in terms of the said prayer ; (iv) And/or to pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper And for this act of kindness the humble Plaintiff as in duty bound shall ever pray. 3. Along with the suit the Plaintiff Petitioner also filed Misc. Case No. 9(T)/2007 praying for ad-interim injunction against the Respondent-Defendants restraining them from interfering with or in any way disturbing the possession and/or ownership of the Plaintiff and his family over the suit land. On the basis of the prayer so made, the learned trial court i.e. the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner was inclined to pass an ad-interim order of injunction as was prayed for. 4. After filing the show cause etc., the learned trial court by its order dated 16.2.2009 (Annexure-E) having vacated the ad-interim injunction order on the ground of the Plaintiff Petitioner having had no locus standi to file the suit, the Plaintiff Petitioner preferred the aforementioned appeal i.e. CR (Misc.) (Civil Appl) Cas No. 1(T)/2009. 4. After filing the show cause etc., the learned trial court by its order dated 16.2.2009 (Annexure-E) having vacated the ad-interim injunction order on the ground of the Plaintiff Petitioner having had no locus standi to file the suit, the Plaintiff Petitioner preferred the aforementioned appeal i.e. CR (Misc.) (Civil Appl) Cas No. 1(T)/2009. The appeal also having been dismissed by order dated 26/6/2009, the Plaintiff Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition assailing the legality and/or validity of both the orders. 5. While entertaining the revision petition, by order dated 7.8.2009, it was provided that both the parties to the suit would maintain status quo in respect of the suit land as was existing on 19.6.2009. However, by order dated 22.4.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 47(SH)/2010, the said interim order was modified by ordering that the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit land as on 7.8.2009 and not 19.6.2009. Be it stated here that alleging violation of the said order dated 7.8.2009, the Plaintiff Petitioner has filed a contempt petition being COP (C) No. 19(SH)/2009. 6. ...I have heard Mr. S. Jindal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents. I have also heard Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel appearing for the impleaded Petitioner No. 2. I have also gone through the entire materials on record. 7. In the suit, the Plaintiff Petitioner has made the following statements in paragraph 1 & 2 of the plaint: 1. That the Plaintiff has been a member of Hindu undivided family consisting of his father Shri J.N. Bawri and 2 brothers viz. Shri Vijaye Bawri and Shri Pawan Bawri. The Plaintiff's uncle (L) Nagarmal Bawri has been also a Hindu undivided family consisting of self and his son Shri Binod Kumar Bawri. But the said HU Fs purchased a piece of private land in 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ' said land' or ' suit land') known as ' Lumbawri' situated at Barapani, earlier under Umsawkhwan village and now under Umbir village, raid mawbuh, Milliem Syemship, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya, admeasuring more or less 30 acres in area, from Shri Willson Nartiang, of Quallapatty, Shillong, which is more particularly described in schedule below. The said was effected by executing a deed of conveyance of land by way of clear sale dated 14.7.1968 and the said deed was registered with the Sub Registrar, Shillong on 25.7.1968 in the erstwhile State of Assam. The said deed of conveyance was entered into by Shri B.K. Bawri on behalf of the Plaintiff and other members of both the aforesaid HU Fs. It is pertinent to mention herein that Shri J.N. Bawri, the father of the Plaintiff has been the Karta of the HUF of the Plaintiff and (L) Nagarmal Bawri was the Karta of the other HUF. 2. That all the aforesaid members of the 2 HU Fs had entered into a oral family arrangement by which it was mutually agreed and decided between the members of both the HU Fs, including the Plaintiff, that the said land would be bought and held in the name of Shri B.K. Bawri on behalf of all male members of the family who would all hold and enjoy the said property and that all rights, benefits and profits arising out of and in connection with the said land belonging to the members of both the HU Fs would be shared and distributed between them. By another oral family arrangement between surviving members of both the HU Fs, it was mutually agreed and decided that the Plaintiff will look after the take all other necessary actions as may be required to protect, preserve and develop the aforesaid suit land. 8. It is the further case of the Plaintiff Petitioner that there was repeated attempts to disturb the peaceful possession over the suit land throwing a cloud over the ownership in respect of the suit land. In the revision petition, the Plaintiff Petitioner has referred to the various steps taken towards protecting the suit land and also as to how the Defendants trespassed into the suit land and attempted to disrupt the access to the land by erecting a barricade on the private approach road leading to the suit land. The Plaintiff Petitioner has also referred to the complaint dated 23.2.2007 filed by the Defendant No. 1 against the Plaintiff's family before the Defendant No. 2. 9. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the suit was filed along with Misc. Case No. 9(T)/2007 in which the learned trial court granted ad-interim injunction vide order dated 19.6.2007. The Plaintiff Petitioner has also referred to the complaint dated 23.2.2007 filed by the Defendant No. 1 against the Plaintiff's family before the Defendant No. 2. 9. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the suit was filed along with Misc. Case No. 9(T)/2007 in which the learned trial court granted ad-interim injunction vide order dated 19.6.2007. However, what transpired thereafter by means of the impugned orders has been noted above. 10. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Petitioner upon a reference to the decision reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719 (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh. (1992) 1 SCC 719 ) submitted that both the courts below committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction in virtually dismissing the suit questioning the very locus standi of the Plaintiff Petitioner. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Respondents referring to the decision of this Court reported in (2010) 2 GLR 231 (Radhabari Tea Company (P) Ltd. v. Mridul Kumar Bhattacherjee and others (2010) 2 GLR 231) submitted that while dealing with the prima facie satisfaction as to the maintainability of the suit, the court must be satisfied that strong prima facie case has been made out including amongst others, on the question of maintainability of the suit. 11. The prayer in the suit has been noted above. The Plaintiff Petitioner has also disclosed his locus standi to file the suit by stating the background facts in paragraph 1 & 2 of the plaint. It is the definite case of the Plaintiff Petitioner that as per the family arrangement amongst the surviving members of both the Hindu undivided families, it is the Plaintiff Petitioner who is to look after and take all necessary action in respect of the suit land towards protecting, preserving and developing the suit land. All throughout the plaint, the Plaintiff has stated about the status of the members of the 2 HU Fs and their interest in the suit land. 12. The learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner in his impugned order dated 16.2.2009 although has referred to the above quoted paragraphs 1 & 2 of the plaint but without dealing with the contentions raised therein has passed the impugned order solely on the basis of the fact that the registered deed of conveyance dated 14.7.1968 is in the name of Shri B.K. Bawri, the Petitioner No. 2. In this connection, the learned Assistant to the DC has also referred to the other documents referred to in the plaint standing in the name of Shri B.K. Bawri. It is on this ground alone the said court has held that the Plaintiff being not the owner of the land, he does not have locus standi to file the suit and consequently vacated the ad-interim order of injunction. 13. In tune with the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.2.2009 the appellate court also by its impugned order dated 26.6.2009 has held that in absence of prima facie title over the suit land, the Plaintiff Petitioner cannot claim any right. Thus, according to the appellate court, for grant of injunction the Plaintiff must have title over the suit land. 14. In Dalpat Kumar (Supra), the apex court while observing that the burden is on the Plaintiff by evidence or otherwise to establish that there is a prima facie case in his favour which necessarily will need adjudication at the trial. While it is true that existence of prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of the property or the right is a condition for grant of temporary injunction, as has been held by the apex court in the said case, prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence, at the trial. Paragraph 5 of the judgment is quoted below. 5. Therefore, the burden is on the Plaintiff by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise that there is "a prima facie case" in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that "the balance of convenience" must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighting competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit. 15. In the decision on which the learned Counsel for the Defendant-Respondents has placed reliance i.e. Radhabari Tea Company (P) Ltd. (supra), the court was concerned with the principles involved in the matter of granting injunction. Dealing with the question of prima facie case in the suit, the court made a distinction between the same with that of determination of an issue of maintainability of a suit as a preliminary issue. In the instant case, the trial court in no uncertain term has held that the Plaintiff Petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the suit, without however, addressing the specific pleas in paragraph 1 & 2 of the plaint referred to above. In the instant case, the trial court in no uncertain term has held that the Plaintiff Petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the suit, without however, addressing the specific pleas in paragraph 1 & 2 of the plaint referred to above. With that kind of an observation and/or finding the suit itself has become infructuous, which in my considered view, the learned trial court could not have done without first ascertaining the state of affairs through evidence etc. 16. The learned appellate court although has upheld the aforesaid order of the learned trial court holding that an order of injunction can be passed only if a person shows a prima facie title over the land in question and that without a prima facie title beyond dispute, the Plaintiff Petitioner is not entitled to an order of injunction, it has been so held even after observing that even if the Plaintiff's case as pleaded is accepted in its entirety, he is not entitled to any order of injunction. This finding in my view is totally perverse and is beyond jurisdiction. 17. As to whether the Plaintiff Petitioner has a prima facie title in respect of the suit land is a matter to be established on evidence at the trial. In the suit, the Plaintiff Petitioner has not claimed anything for himself. What he has prayed for is a declaration that the Defendants have no right to disturb the ownership and peaceful possession of the suit land belonging to the Plaintiff and other family members. In this connection, the pleaded case in the plaint including the statements made in paragraphs 1 & 2 of the plaint will have a definite bearing which will have to be adjudicated upon at the trial. 18. The most important aspect of the matter is that Shri B.K. Bawri upon a reference to whom the impugned orders have been passed by the learned trial court and has been upheld by the appellate court has got himself impleaded as Petitioner No. 2 in the instant revision petition on whose behalf Mr. KS Kynjing, learned senior counsel has entered appearance. The said Petitioner No. 2 has been impleaded by order dated 31.8.2010 passed in MC No. (SH) 341/2010. KS Kynjing, learned senior counsel has entered appearance. The said Petitioner No. 2 has been impleaded by order dated 31.8.2010 passed in MC No. (SH) 341/2010. In the said petition, the Petitioner No. 2 has supported the Plaintiff Petitioner even to the extent of accepting the above quoted averments made in paragraphs 1 & 2 of the plaint. Thus, whatever doubt was there in the mind of learned trial court and the appellate court stands eradicated by such stand of Shri B.K. Bawri, i.e. Petitioner No. 2. 19. While deciding the matter of injunction, the learned trial court is primarily concerned with prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury which is likely to be caused in the event of refusing to grant an order of injunction. At that stage it is not for the court and that too without framing an issue as to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of lack of locus standi, to hold that the Plaintiff Petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the suit. In the instant case without adhering to said sound principles, the learned trial court solely on the basis of the documents referred to in the plaint, but without adverting to the specific stand in paragraph 1 & 2 of the plaint has held that the Plaintiff Petitioner does not have locus standi to file the suit rendering the suit itself infructuous. 20. As has been noted above, the appellate court while affirming the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned trial court has gone a step further towards observing that even if the case of the Plaintiff is accepted in its entirety than also he is not entitled to any order of injunction. While holding so, the appellate court miserably failed address itself to the aforesaid sound principles relating to grant of and/or refusal of an order of injunction. 21. In Smt. Gangabai v. Vijay Kumar reported in (1974) 2 SCC 393 , the apex court answering the distinction between the right of suit and the right of appeal observed thus: ...The main controversy before us centres round the question whether that appeal was maintainable. On this question the position seems to us well-established. There is basic distinction between the right of suit and the right of appeal. On this question the position seems to us well-established. There is basic distinction between the right of suit and the right of appeal. There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute one may, at one's peril, bring a suit of one's choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever frivolous to claim that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit.... 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am constrained to hold that the impugned orders dated 16.2.2009 and 26.6.2009 passed by the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh in Misc. Case No. 9(T)/2007 arising out of Title Suit No. 7(T)/2007 and CR (Msic) (Civil Appeal) Case No. 1(T)/2009 passed by the learned Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh respectively are not sustainable in law and hence stand set aside and quashed. Consequently, the ad-interim injunction granted by the learned trial court vide order dated 19.6.2007 shall stand revived and hold the field till such time the injunction matter is finally decided by the trial court. 23. In view of the above finding, now the trial court shall decide the injunction matter consistently with the observations made above and following the principles involved in the matter of granting or refusing to grant injunction. 24. The civil revision petition is allowed. The Registry shall send down the case records to the court below along with the copy of this judgment and order. This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by this Court in Civil Revision (P) No. 29(SH)/2009. By the said order, the parties involved were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land as on 19.6.2009. However, the said order was modified in Misc. Case No. 47(SH)/2010 directing to maintain status quo as on 7.8.2009 and not 19.6.2009. The Respondents have filed their objection denying violation of the order of this Court. By order dated 18.9.2009 this Court issued direction to the O/C. Umiam PS to submit status report as to the possession of the parties in the suit land and also about any new construction or plantation or cutting of trees etc. in the said land. The Respondents have filed their objection denying violation of the order of this Court. By order dated 18.9.2009 this Court issued direction to the O/C. Umiam PS to submit status report as to the possession of the parties in the suit land and also about any new construction or plantation or cutting of trees etc. in the said land. As per the report dated 6.2.2010 furnished by the O/c Umiam PS, the Respondents have disobeyed and violated the aforesaid order passed by this Court. For a ready reference the said letter is quoted below: To The Hon'ble Justice Mr. B.D. Agarwal, Guwahati High Court, Shillong Bench, (Through Registrar, Shillong Bench Guwahati High Court) Dated Umiam the 6th February, 2010. Ref: CR(P) No. 29(54) of 2009 in CR(P) No. 29(SH)2009. Sub: Police Report. Sir, With reference to the above, I have the honour to inform you that there was a dispute over the land called "Ka Lum Bawri" at UCC Road, Umbir Village in between the First Party Shri Bhagawati Bawri (now represented by Shri Ramesh K. Bawri) and the Second Party Shri Wolly Marbaniang and other since 14.3.2007 and in this connection 2 (two) Non-FI Rs vide Umiam PS Non FIR 1/2007 and Umiam PS Non FIR 1/2009 Under Section 145/107Code of Criminal Procedure respectively and the same has been sent to the Nongpoh Court and the matter is still pending in the Court till date. That Sir, in this connection your Hon'ble Court had passed an order on 7.8.09 stating that both the parties should remain status quo of the suit land as per order passed on 19.6.2009 by the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Kumari A.L. Mawlong. That Sir, on 22.9.2009 on receipt of the FIR lodged by Shri R.K. Bawri that the 2nd Party along with others have forcibly trespassed and continuing cultivation/plantation of crops and also cutting down trees from the suit land thereby violated the order to remain status quo by the Hon'ble High Court dated 7.8.09. In this connection I have enquired into the matter and a status quo report had been sent to your Hon'ble Court on 30.9.2009 regarding the situation of the said suit land. In this connection I have enquired into the matter and a status quo report had been sent to your Hon'ble Court on 30.9.2009 regarding the situation of the said suit land. That Sir, again on 30.01.2010, the First Party Shri R.K. Bawri submitted a written report that once again the Second Party Shri Wolly Marbaniang had intruded into the suit land on the 27.1.2010 and 28.1.2010 respectively thereby once again violated your Hon'ble Court Order, directing that both parties should maintain Status Quo in the said suit land. That Sir, in this connection, self conducted enquiry over the suit land and found nobody was present there. Further signs of recent cultivation of crops in some portion of the said suit land. In this connection Second Party Shri Wolly Marbaniang had been contacted and stated that he along with others intruded into the said suit land to take out the old cultivated crops thereby once again violated the Order passed by your Hon'ble court dated 7.8.09. Further, it is to be mentioned that as per enquiry report submitted by the EO, SI J. Mynbah dated 29.4.2006, the said suit land had been purchased by the First Party on the year 1968 and had been registered vide Government Registered sale deed on 25.7.1968. The said suit land is also well demarcated possessed and utilized by the First Party till date. That Sir, as per your Hon'ble Court Order dated 7.8.2009 both the parties are to maintain Status Quo in the said suit land, but the Second Party disobeyed and violated your Court Order on many occasion. Submitted for favour of your kind perusal and order. Enclosed : 1 Enquiry Report (Photostat). 2 Receipt (Photostat) 3 Dorbar Shnong Umbir letter (Photostat). Yours faithfully, Sd/-6.2.2010 (O/C Umiam P.S.). From the above, what is seen is that there is violation of the aforesaid order of this Court although the same has been denied by the Respondents in the show cause reply. The related revision petition has been allowed by setting aside the impugned orders by which the earlier injunction order dated 19.6.2009 was vacated. Consequently, the earlier injunction order dated 19.6.2007 passed in Misc. The related revision petition has been allowed by setting aside the impugned orders by which the earlier injunction order dated 19.6.2009 was vacated. Consequently, the earlier injunction order dated 19.6.2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 9(T)/2009 in T.S. 7(T)/2007 stands revived and the Defendants-Respondents will have to obey the said order of injunction till such time the injunction matter is finally decided in terms of the judgment and order passed in the civil revision petition. It is ordered accordingly. The O/C, Umiam PS shall ensure that the order of injunction holding the field is scrupulously followed by the Defendants-Respondents. In case of any violation of said order of injunction, it will be open for the Plaintiff Petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate relief. With the above direction and observations, the contempt petition is closed for the present with liberty to the Plaintiff Petitioner to seek appropriate relief in case of violation of the aforesaid order of injunction passed by the learned trial court vide order dated 19.6.2009. Petition dismissed.