JUDGMENT Mr. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon as well as order dated 20.12.2012 passed by District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which, application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of suit property. Along with suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed, which was dismissed on 29.08.2012. Petitioner filed appeal against the said order, which was also dismissed on 20.12.2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier also a suit was filed by respondent No.1 for permanent injunction against the present petitioner, which was dismissed as he failed to establish his possession over the suit land. Learned counsel further submits that both the Courts have not taken into consideration the fact that the possession was not found to be of respondent No.1 and present petitioner is in possession of the suit land but still interim prayer has been declined by both the Courts. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.1 has left the village in the year 1985 and is not residing since then in the village, still both the Courts have not taken into consideration that material fact. 4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the orders passed by both the Courts. 5. The only argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed as he could not prove his possession over the suit land. The application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court by giving a specific finding that in case respondent No.1 failed to establish his ownership over the suit property, it does not mean that the applicant is owner in possession over the suit property. The petitioner has failed before both the Courts to prove his ownership on the basis of some documents. Simply by taking a ground that the suit filed by respondent No.1 has been dismissed, therefore, the prayer of interim injunction should have been granted, is not sufficient. 6. The petitioner has failed before both the Courts to prove his ownership on the basis of some documents. Simply by taking a ground that the suit filed by respondent No.1 has been dismissed, therefore, the prayer of interim injunction should have been granted, is not sufficient. 6. The three main principles, which govern the grant or refusal of injunction are (a) prima facie case; (b) balance of convenience; and (c) irreparable injury, which guide the Court in this regard. In the broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record and only on that basis, the Court comes to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out or not. 7. The Grant or refusal of an interim injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, or diligence should be taken by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. Once an injunction is granted, it takes time to vacate that order. 8. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead) through L.Rs. and others, [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 1828] : 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 441, the observation of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in such like matter is as under: - “Grant or refusal of an injunction 86. Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the defendant. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness.” 9. Similarly in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the defendant. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness.” 9. Similarly in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp. SCC 727, this view has been affirmed, which is reproduced as under: - “In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion.” 10. In Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, [2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 285] : (2010) 2 SCC 142 , the 3-Judge Bench considered a somewhat similar question in the context of the refusal of the trial Court and the High Court to pass an order of temporary injunction, referred to the judgments in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd (supra), N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. (1996) 5 SCC 714 and observed: “The ratio of the abovenoted judgments is that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity.” 11. In view of the facts and law position as explained above, there is no legal infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------