P. K. Musahary, J. - This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kohima in Civil Appeal No. 03/2010 and Civil Misc Cases No. 10 of 2010. 2. One Dr. Neikhrielie filed Title Suit No. 2/2008 for declaration of right, title and interest and also for possession of the suit land located in the Police Reserve Hills at Kohima Town. The said Title Suit, was rejected for want of cause of action as the sale deed executed between Dr. Neikhrielie and Kenniyuo Solo, present plaintiff-respondent, on the basis of which the above person claimed right, title and interest, was not registered. The said Dr. Neikhrielie returned the said land to the original owner i.e. the present respondent and got the consideration value returned. Then the present respondent filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 2010 before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kohima, who passed an order to maintain the status-quo fixing the matter on 06.07.2010. The aforesaid Title Suit and Civil Misc. case were endorsed to Civil Judge (Jr.) Division, Kohima, who on receipt of the records fixed the matter for hearing on 16.07.2010. The present petitioners as defendants filed written objection in Misc. case on 16.7.2010, and the matter was heard on the same day. The order for injunction was kept reserved but an interim order to maintain status-quo was passed with further direction that no further development works to be continued on the suit land till order of injunction is passed. 3. Against the said order, the petitioners as defendants filed M. A. (F) No. 1 (K) /2010 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 22.07.2010 directing the Civil Judge (Jr.) Division to pass necessary order on injunction matter within 14 days from 16.07.2010. The learned Civil Judge (Jr.) Division vide order dated 25.08.2010 refused to grant any injunction order and disposed of the Misc Case No. 13/2010. (i) The respondent as plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 3/2010 in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge against the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2010 along with the Civil Misc. Case No. 10/2010. Both the said appeal and the Misc. (i) The respondent as plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 3/2010 in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge against the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2010 along with the Civil Misc. Case No. 10/2010. Both the said appeal and the Misc. cases were disposed of by a common order on 09.09.2010 setting aside the order dated 25.08.2010 and directing the parties to maintain status-quo, (ii) The respondents/plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 11/2010 in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge for modification of the order dated 09.09.2010. The said Misc. case was disposed of by an order dated 24.08.2010 modifying the order dated 09.09.2010 to the effect that both the parties shall maintain status-quo (i.e. complete stoppage of any developmental activities) over the disputed suit land till disposal of the Civil Suit No. 03/2010 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.) Divisioa (iii) Petitioners as defendants filed Civil Revision No. 6(K)/2010 before this Court against the aforesaid order dated 24.09.2010. By an order dated 08.10.2010 passed in the aforesaid Civil Revision, the operation of the order dated 24.09.2010 was stayed till next date. On 26.10.2010, this Court ordered to list the matter after three weeks and allowed to continue the interim stay order. (iv) In the meantime, the present respondent filed Civil Misc. Case No. 13/ 2010 in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kohima under Section 151 CPC for initiating appropriate action against the defendant/petitioners for alleged willful and intentional disobedience of order dated 09.09.2010. Show cause notice was issued in the said case. On 30.09.2010, the defendants/petitioners entered appearance and filed a written objection on26.10.2010. The matter was fixed for hearing on 02.11.2010 but the applicant's counsel sought for time and no hearing took place. 4. While issuing notice on 03.02.2011, the LCRs were called for but the same have not been received as yet. This civil revision is being disposed of on the basis of the materials made available along with the pleadings and submissions by the learned counsel for the parties inasmuch as this Court is not considering the entire matter on merit but confining to the legal issue in regard to granting of injunction under the existing provisions of law. 5. I have heard Mr. B. N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Apok Pongener, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. 5. I have heard Mr. B. N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Apok Pongener, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. T. B. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. In the present case, this Court is concerned with the legality of the impugned order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kohima in Civil Appeal No. 3/2010 and Civil Misc. case No. 10/2010. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is quoted hereunder:- "......The original Civil Suit pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr.) is for a decree declaring that, the petitioner is the owner of the disputed suit land, particulars of which are already cited above. If the opposite parties are not restrained and allowed to proceed with ongoing construction works on the disputed suit land, it will amount to virtually disposing off the case in favour of the opposite parties without giving an opportunity to a fair trial wherein the question of the possession of the suit land whether prima-facie unlawfully acquired or acquired by legally tenable means shall also be decided. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that, pending disposal of the main suit by the Ld. Court of Civil Judge (Jr.), status-quo should be maintained by both the parties. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr.) in Civil Misc. Case No. 13/10 arising out of Civil Suit No. 03/2010 is hereby set aside and I hereby direct that both the parties shall maintain status-quo over the disputed suit land till disposal of the Civil Suit No. 03/10 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.) Before I part with the case record, I request the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr.) to dispose off the said Civil Suit No. 03/10 as expeditiously as possible." 7. It may be noted that on application made by the plaintiff/respondent, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kohima, by order dated 24.09.2010 modified the order dated 09.09.2010 as under :- "....Second last paragraph of the order dated 09.09.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Case No. 03/10 and Civil Misc. Case No. 10/10 is hereby modified to the extent "and I hereby direct that both the parties shall maintain status-quo (i.e. complete stoppage of any develop­mental activities) over the disputed suit land till disposal of the Civil Suit No. 03/2010 by the Lr. Case No. 10/10 is hereby modified to the extent "and I hereby direct that both the parties shall maintain status-quo (i.e. complete stoppage of any develop­mental activities) over the disputed suit land till disposal of the Civil Suit No. 03/2010 by the Lr. Civil Judge (Jr.)". 8. Mr. B. N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel made the following submissions:- (i) The condition precedent for granting the status-quo order "complete stoppage of developmental activities" over the suit land is not present inasmuch as the respondent/plaintiff, at no point of time, was in possession of the suit land but on the contrary the petitioners/respondents, particularly, the petitioner No.2 has been in possession of the suit land; (ii) The learned Court below failed to take into consideration that the suit land is required by the petitioners for public purpose/interest namely, construction of Communication Centre with the financial assistance provided by the Central Government; (iii) The learned Court below while passing the impugned order dated 09.09.2010 acted in violation the established law pertaining to conflict between the public interest and private interest. The learned appellate Court below lost sight of the legal position that the public interest prevails upon the private interest and no injunction order could be passed in a case like the present one where public interest and utilization of public fund is manifestly involved. To substantiate his submissions, Mr. Sarmahas cited in cases of (1) Umesh Chandra Paul Vs. Suresh Chandra Paul & Anr. reported in 1994 (1) GLJ443, (2) 2 RamniUal N. Bhutta &Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (1997) 1 SCC 134; (3) Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. Vs. Praveen Kumar, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312 , and (4) N.Ramaiah Vs. Nagaraj reported in AIR 2001 Karnataka 395. 9. Mr. T. B. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present application is not mainatainable in view of the amendment to Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has taken effect from 01.07.02. According to him, as per the provision under the amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC for short) filing of a revision petition against an order passed by a lower appellate Court is not permitted. He relies on a decision in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. According to him, as per the provision under the amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC for short) filing of a revision petition against an order passed by a lower appellate Court is not permitted. He relies on a decision in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 . He also submits that the applicant Police Department has taken highhanded action to forcibly evict the plaintiff/respondent ignoring the procedure established by law and the applicants have shown disrespect to the status quo order passed by the learned lower appellate Court warranting interference by this Court by issuing appropriate direction and or order to obey the status quo order in terms of judgment and order passed by this Court in Lona Sarma (Barua) & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2010 (3) GLT 465. As regards the cause of action, it has been submitted that the plaintiff/respondent has been able to make out a prima facie case that he was the owner of he land in question. It has been persuaded that due to peculiar land holding system in the State of Nagaland, all lands belong to the village/clan and individual, and the State Government does not own any land unless the same is acquired by it from the land owner. In this regard, State Revenue Department issued Memorandum No. LR/3-32/93 dated 28.02.94 wherein it is stated, amongst other, that due to prevailing land tenure system in Nagaland, barring, Dimapur Mouza, all other lands belong to the people and accordingly, the Government have to acquire/requisition land, mostly by payment of compensation for such purposes. There are instances where the people have also contributed the land to Government for specific purposes. On the basis of the said Government Memorandum it has been argued by Mr. Jamir that the contention of the petitioners that suit land belongs to the Government of Nagaland from the days of British Raj is misconceived. Moreover, there is not even a whisper that the petitioners ever acquired or requisitioned the suit land from the plaintiff/respondent who is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land. 10. The law regarding power to grant injunction are well settled by now. Moreover, there is not even a whisper that the petitioners ever acquired or requisitioned the suit land from the plaintiff/respondent who is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land. 10. The law regarding power to grant injunction are well settled by now. It is a discretionary power of the Court circumscribed by 3 cardinal principles, namely, prima facie case for trial, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. In respect of immovable property like land an order of injunction cannot be passed unless there is a prima facie filing that the plaintiff is or was in possession of the suit premises on the date offiling of suit and passing of status quo order and that he has been subsequently dispossessed in violation of the subsisting status quo order. Let me examine this aspect of the matter. The learned trial Court by an order dated 25.08.2010 refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, present respondent, after a detailed discussion regarding the possession of the suit land. The learned Civil Judge (Jr.) Division observed that the present suit was filed on 01.07.2010 and during the said period the land was already in possession of the defendants, the present petitioners and the plaintiff had no possession over the suit land at any point of time. It was Dr. Neikhrielie, who claimed to have purchased the suit land from the present Respondent by executing an unregistered sale deed and filed the first T. S. No. 02/03 which was dismissed for want of cause of action. Then only the present plaintiff/ respondent stepped into the shoes of Dr. Neikhrielie claiming himself as the original owner of the land in question as he has refunded the consideration values of the suit land to Dr. Neikhrielie. It is, therefore, quite clear that the plaintiff/respondent has not been able to make out a prima facie case or at least any cause of action, far more, possession over the land in question. It was under such circumstances, the learned Civil Judge (Jr.) Division in the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2010 came to a conclusion that - "the plaintiff had no possession over the suit land at any point of time and now Dr. It was under such circumstances, the learned Civil Judge (Jr.) Division in the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2010 came to a conclusion that - "the plaintiff had no possession over the suit land at any point of time and now Dr. Neikhrielie having lodged his suit against the defendants have given up his claim and as such, the plaintiff by his own statements have demolished his own case for injunction particularly, when injunction can be issued legally only to protect the possession or occupation of the party and not to change the existing status or possession of the party or to give relief by way of restoring possession to the plaintiff before disposal of the suit. At all reliable time, the possession of the land is with the defendant and, therefore, no injunction can be issued. "The learned Civil Judge (Jr.) "Division also observed that "if he has no possession, the possession of the adversary having been confirmed, no injunction can be granted." It is immaterial, for the purpose of granting injunction, to find out whether the party concerned acquired ownership by inheritance or as a clan member or otherwise. What is to be given due weightage and consideration is whether the party concerned has been in possession of the suit premises before or at the time of instituting the suit. In the present case, in the pleadings of the plaintiff/ respondent, it is found as an admitted position that he sold the suit land to Dr. Neikhrielie who claims to have been in possession of the suit land by virtue of an unregistered sale deed and the plaintiff/respondent is claiming restoration of the suit land on return of the consideration amount to Dr. Neikhrielie and now claiming possession of the suit land from Dr. Neikhrielie. In my considered opinion, the learned Civil Judge (Jr.) Division correctly appreciated the factual aspect of the matter, particularly in regard to cause of action and the possession of the suit premises and came to a correct conclusion and refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent which is not liable to be interfered with by the learned lower appellate Court as has been done by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kohima vide impugned order dated 09.09.2010. 11. Hence I may refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Bruce Vs. Silva Raj & Anr. 11. Hence I may refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Bruce Vs. Silva Raj & Anr. reported in 1987 (Suppl) SCC161 wherein it has been held that injunction can be granted in favour of a person only if he has possession of the property and, if he has no possession, the possession of the adversory having been confirmed no injunction can be granted. I may also refer to another decision of the Supreme Court in the State Bank of Patiala & Ors. Vs. Vmesh Kumar Bhasin, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 468 wherein it has been held that no interim order be granted where prima facie case is not made out and or there is doubt about the maintainability of the petition. 12. The second aspect of the matter relates to balance of convenience. In this regard it may be noted that the defendant/ petitioner is a Government Department and it was in possession of the said premises. Admittedly, the petitioner department is proposing to utilize the said premises for a public purpose namely, construction of a Communication Centre funded by the Central Government. No private interest is involved in this case. The plaintiff respondent at certain point of time, by selling the suit premises to Dr. Neikhrielie, had shown his disinterest in the suit land but when the said Dr. Neikhrielie lost the Suit No. 2/08, he has again become interested in the suit premises, which cannot be accepted in a normal course of transaction. Here is a case involving private and public interest. As per the existing law it is the public interest which must prevail over the private interest. The plaintiff/respondent is nurishing a private interest by way offiling a suit to get back the suit premises from the petitioner department. As against such private interest the petitioners have been able to demonstrate public interest by way of proposing to construct a Communication Centre which must be given more importance and priority over the private interest of the plantiff/ respondent. The balance of convenience, therefore, is obviously in favour of the defendants petitioners. 13. In respect of third requirement i.e., irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff it may be noted that the plaintiff may loose a suit premises measuring 15,250 Sq. ft. The balance of convenience, therefore, is obviously in favour of the defendants petitioners. 13. In respect of third requirement i.e., irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff it may be noted that the plaintiff may loose a suit premises measuring 15,250 Sq. ft. located at the police reserve hills at Kohima town, the value of which can be assesed as per the present market rate of land in Kohima town. The expected financial loss of the land can be compensated in terms of money by defendants/petitioners by way of providing compensation to the plaintiff provided he succeeds in the suit. Such financial loss or injury cannot be said to be irreparable. Any financial loss, even if it is to some great extent, can be compensated in terms of money by the defendants/petitioners, as a Government Department. The plaintiff/respondent, although made statement to the effect that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury, there is really no such case of irreparable loss and injury. It is found that the expected loss and injury can be compensated in terms of money and no injunction can be granted in his favour on that score alone. 14. The law so far settled is that consideration of all the above three cardinal principles is not required if the parties fail to prove prima facie to go for trial and, in such cases, the balance of convenience or irreparable loss or injury may not come for consideration, hi the present case, the plaintiff/ respondent, by his conduct proved that he is no longer in possession of the suit premises since he sold it on 01.03.2003 to Dr. Neikhrielie. The Court is not concerned whether he sold it by executing a registered or an unregistered sale deed, but it is concerned only with the interest of the present plaintiff/respondent, who is claiming the right, title and interest as original owner of the suit land as the person to whom he sold it, has lost the suit filed earlier. At the same time, the defendants/petitioners are claiming the suit land on the principle of acquiescence and long adverse possession over the suit land. This may be a matter of proof but it is sufficiently clear that the defendants/petitioners had been enjoying adverse possession over the suit land since the plaintiff/respondent at no point of time, before he sold it to Dr. This may be a matter of proof but it is sufficiently clear that the defendants/petitioners had been enjoying adverse possession over the suit land since the plaintiff/respondent at no point of time, before he sold it to Dr. Neikhrielie, claimed possession of the suit land or ever proceeded against the defendants/petitioners for recovery of possession of the suit land from them. 15. I am of the considered view that the plaintiff/respondent could not make out a prima facie case to go for trial besides being unsuccessful in showing that balance of convenience lies in his favour and he would suffer loss irreparable loss and injury, if injunction is not granted and as such, the learned Civil Judge (Jr.) Division rightly rejected the plaintiff's prayer for grant of injunction vide order dated 25.08.06. I am unable to persuade myself to accept the view, reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kohima in the impugned appellate order dated 09.09.2010 in directing the parties concerned to maintain status quo (i.e. complete stoppage of any developmental activities) over the disputed suit land, as the same has been passed in violation of settled position of law in granting injunction/interim order. 16. Before coming to a conclusion, I would like to remind myself of the settled position of law from a decision of the Apex Court in Kashi Math Samsthan & Anr. Vs. Shrimod Sudhindra Tirtha Swamy & Anr. Reported in (2010) 1 SCC 689 as reflected from paragraph 16 of the judgment. To quote the same:- "16. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injuncton, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injuncton, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted. Therefore, keeping this principle in mind, let us now see whether the appellant has been able to prove prima facie case to get an order of injunction during the pendency of the two appeals in the High Court. 17. In the light of the above discussions based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court, I hold that the impugned order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kohima in Civil Appeal No. 03/2010 and Civil Misc. Cases No. 10 of 2010, is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. 18. The Revision petition stands allowed. 19. The defendants/petitioners are allowed to proceed with construction works of the Communication Centre and/or developmental activities over the disputed land located at police reserve hills at Kohima town. 20. No order as to cost.