ORDER The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been preferred against an order dated 21-07-2011 passed by learned Sub-Judge-IV, Bettiah, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sub-Judge’) in Title Suit No. 261 of 2009, whereby, learned Sub-Judge has dismissed the petition filed on behalf of plaintiff/appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, whereby the plaintiff/appellant had prayed for grant of ad-interim and temporary injunction by restraining respondents 1st Party/defendants 1st Party from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit land mentioned in schedule-II (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’) till the disposal of the suit. 2. Short fact of the case is that the plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit, vide Title Suit No. 261 of 2009 before the court below for declaring the sale-deed dated 18-09-2009 executed by defendant 2nd set/respondent no. 5 as forged on the ground that the respondent no. 5 was having no right for executing sale-deed in respect of the suit property since the defendant had already attested deed of gift as well as registered sale-deed, which were executed in the year 1979 in respect of the suit property and as such, the sale-deed in question according to the plaintiff/appellant was void ab initio. In the suit, the plaintiff-appellant had also prayed for grant of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants 1st party i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 4 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/appellant. Since during the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1st party, on the strength of alleged sale-deed of the year 2009, started unnecessary trouble in peaceful possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit land, the plaintiff/appellant filed a petition on 05-09-2010 for grant of temporary injunction, restraining defendants 1st party from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff/appellant over the suit land. It was pleaded that father of the plaintiff/appellant, namely; Parmeshwar Mahto died in the year 1969, leaving behind him plaintiff (Baidya Nath Mahto), his brother (Jagdish Mahto) and one daughter, namely; Phuljhari Devi. After the death of Parmeshwar Mahto, partition took place in between the plaintiff, his brother (Jagdish Mahto) and his sister (Phuljhari Devi). In the said partition, Phuljhari Devi got 17 Katha of land in her share and she took possession over the same. After the death of Parmeshwar Mahto, partition took place in between the plaintiff, his brother (Jagdish Mahto) and his sister (Phuljhari Devi). In the said partition, Phuljhari Devi got 17 Katha of land in her share and she took possession over the same. Plaintiff’s brother, Jagdish Mahto was having only one daughter namely; Binda Devi, who is defendant 2nd party/respondent no. 5 in the present appeal. It was pleaded that though in the share, Jagdish Mahto was to get 03 Bigha, 09 Katha 18 ½ Dhurs of land, but amicably, he had accepted for 03 Bigha and 15 ½ Dhurs of land and rest of the land was left for the share of the plaintiff/appellant. After partition had taken place, brother of the plaintiff/appellant, namely; Jagdish Mahto died in the year 1970, leaving behind his wife Panmati Devi, and daughter Binda Devi (respondent no. 5/defendant 2nd party). After the death of his brother, the plaintiff-appellant solemnized marriage with his brother’s wife (Panmati Devi) and she started to live with the plaintiff/appellant as his wife. From the wedlock of plaintiff (Baidya Nath Mahto) and Panmati Devi, three sons, namely; Ravindra Mahto, Brajesh Mahto and Srikant Mahto and two daughters, namely; Usha Devi and Sheema Devi were born. It has also been pleaded that respondent no. 5 was married in a rich family. In her marriage, the plaintiff-appellant spent money like his own daughter. Further case of the plaintiff is that Panmati Devi in respect of share of her husband, namely Jagdish Mahto had gifted 02 Bigha, 01 Katha and 17 ½ Dhurs of land with the consent and attestation of Binda Devi (respondent no. 5), and executed registered deed of gift on 20-12-1979 in favour of Ravindra Mahto, who was born out of wedlock of plaintiff/appellant with Panmati Devi. On the same date, defendant 2nd party/respondent no. 5 executed registered sale-deed in favour of Ravindra Mahto in respect of her 18 Katha & 18 Dhurs of land. Accordingly, Panmati Devi as well as Binda Devi (respondent no. 5) transferred entire land of Jagdish Mahto by registered deed of gift as well as sale-deed in favour of son of the plaintiff/appellant, Ravindra Mahto and since then, the plaintiff/appellant was coming in peaceful possession over the said land i.e. suit property. However in the year 2009, the plaintiff noticed that by forged registered sale-deed dated 18-09-2009, the defendant 2nd party/respondent no. However in the year 2009, the plaintiff noticed that by forged registered sale-deed dated 18-09-2009, the defendant 2nd party/respondent no. 5 transferred the suit property, which was already transferred to the son of the plaintiff (Ravindra Mahto) in the year 1979, in favour of defendants 1st party i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 4. Since after sale-deed, which was executed in the year 2009 by a person having no right and title over the suit land, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 started disturbing the plaintiff/appellant in his peaceful possession of the suit land. Even after filing of the suit for declaring the forged sale-deed as void, the plaintiff/appellant filed petition under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, specifically mentioning therein that the respondent no. 5 (Smt. Binda Devi) had duly attested the deed of gift dated 20-12-1979 and she herself had sold 18 Katha & 18 Dhurs of land through registered sale-deed and also the suit land was continuing in the actual physical possession of the plaintiff, as rightful owner. The defendants/respondents filed their show cause (copy of same has been brought on record as ‘Annexure-3’ to the petition). The defendants/respondents opposed the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. 3. Learned Sub-Judge after hearing the parties by order dated 21-07-2011, the order which is impugned in the present appeal, has rejected the same, which is under challeng in the present appeal. 4. Sri Shiv Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, while referring to the impugned order, submits that the learned Sub-Judge in the impugned order has noticed that prima facie case as well as balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiff/appellant, still has rejected the petition only on the ground that all the three ingredients for grant of injunction was not available, whereas, according to learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, it was a clear cut case for grant of temporary injunction due to the reason that if temporary injunction is not granted, there is every likelihood that the respondents 1st party/defendants 1st party may forcibly try to disposses the plaintiff/appellant from his peaceful possession of the suit land. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant further submits that in the show cause, which was filed by the defendants-respondents to the injunction petition, the defendants had not disputed the claim of the plaintiff/appellant that same land was already transferred long back in the year 1979, through registered deed of gift as well as sale-deed in favour of plaintiff side. Accordingly, it was submitted that it is a fit case for granting temporary injunction by restraining defendants 1st party/ respondents 1st party from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit land. 5. Sri Mahesh Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 1st party/defendants 1st party, who are contesting respondents, has opposed the prayer of the plaintiff/appellant. He submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. He submits that in the show cause, which was filed by the defendants/respondents, it was categorically stated that plaintiff/appellant was not in peaceful possession of the suit land. The plaintiff/appellant was never in possession over the land in question for a single moment. He submits that there were many contradictions in the plaint as well as petition filed for grant of injunction. He further submits that in the plaint, the plaintiff, besides making prayer for grant of relief by declaring the sale-deeds as void, had also pleaded for grant of permanent injunction. He submits that as per settled law, if a relief is to be granted at final stage then at an interlocutory stage, such relief cannot be granted. On aforesaid grounds, he has prayed for rejecting the appeal. 6. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, which includes copy of plaint, temporary injunction petition as well as show cause filed on behalf of defendants/respondents including the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Sub-Judge had found that prima facie case as well as balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiff/appellant, however; the Court was not satisfied regarding the third ingredient i.e. irreparable loss. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Sub-Judge had found that prima facie case as well as balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiff/appellant, however; the Court was not satisfied regarding the third ingredient i.e. irreparable loss. It is true that by non-grant of temporary injunction, there is possibility of no irreparable loss, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly; the fact that the pleading, in respect of execution of registered deed of gift as well as sale-deed in the year 1979 in favour of the plaintiff side, has not been denied by the defendants-respondents in their show cause filed before the court below and also no specific statement as to whether on the strength of sale-deeds of the year 2009, the defendants 1st party/respondent nos. 1 to 4 were in possession over the suit land, it was necessary at least for passing an order for maintaining status quo, if no order is passed for restraining the respondents 1st party/defendants 1st party from interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 7. Accordingly, in view of the fact that the learned Sub-Judge was satisfied that prima facie case as well as balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiff/appellant and the defendants/respondents had not asserted their claim of possession over the suit land, specifically, in their show-cause, it is desirable to direct for maintaining status quo. Accordingly, the parties are directed to maintain status quo till further order is passed by the court below. However, for further order as observed by the learned Sub-Judge in the impugned order, the matter can be raised before the court below itself. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, it is also necessary to direct the court below to proceed with the trial expeditiously, and at the same time, plaintiff/appellant and defendants 1st party/respondent nos. 1 to 4 are also required to be directed to give full co- operation to the court below for early disposal of the case. 9. Accordingly, with above observations and directions, the appeal stands allowed.