Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, in suit no.152 of 2013, whereby the said court has rejected the application 6C2 for temporary injunction. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant is a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, of the residents of Ansul Green Valley, Dehradun. A suit was filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 to remove their possession from the property, mentioned in the schedule of the Plaint and demolish the structure raised by the defendant Nos. 1 & 2. It has been stated on behalf of plaintiff/appellant that Ansul Green Valley colony was developed and established in terms of sanctioned plan (approved by Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Dehradun) and out of 6524.80 Sq.mtr., 14.19 percent of area was left as Green area. The plaintiff’s concern is that defendants should not be allowed to raise Sewerage Treatment Plant (for short “STP”) in the part of green area. 4. It is admitted to the plaintiff that respondent No.4 (Nagar Nigam, Dehradun) allotted the land of Khasra Nos. 353 and 360Kha measuring 1150 Sq.meter to defendant/respondent No.1 (Uttarakhand Peya Jal Sansadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam, Dehradun) for setting up and getting constructed the STP. In the written statement of defendant/respondent no.2 in its paragraph no.33, it has been pleaded that the STP is being set up on the aforesaid two plots (plot Nos. 353 and 360Kha) in Jakhan area, allotted by Nagar Nigam, Dehradun. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant argued that while constructing the STP, the defendant nos. 1 & 2 have encroached upon a part of green land which is left by plaintiff’s society as per the sanctioned plan. It is contended on behalf of plaintiff/appellant that if the STP is set up in the green area or nearby the place allotted by Nagar Nigam, it would adversely effect environment for the residents of the plaintiff’s society. It is also submitted that allowing the construction over any part of green area would violate the terms of the sanctioned plan. 6. In reply to this, learned counsel for the defendant no.1 submitted that 80% of the construction work of STP is already complete. It is also submitted that allowing the construction over any part of green area would violate the terms of the sanctioned plan. 6. In reply to this, learned counsel for the defendant no.1 submitted that 80% of the construction work of STP is already complete. It is further pointed out that the then Chairman of plaintiff’s society himself was a party to the resolution dated 07.01.2012 whereby it was undertaken that in setting up the STP, if any part of the green area is required, the society would have no objection to it. The copies of the said documents are at page nos. 75 and 76 of the record of this appeal. Lastly, it is also submitted that by setting up the STP, larger public interest is being served for entire city of Dehradun, and as such, the plaintiff has no case for temporary injunction. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that present case is of the nature where on one hand the plaintiff is coming forward for protection of the interest of its members, and on the other hand, the defendants are working for larger public interest. As such, out of three essential requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irrepairable loss, certainly balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff as by granting of temporary injunction, larger Public interest is likely to suffer. Apart from this, by setting up the STP, it would also benefit to the residents of the plaintiff’s society for sewage flown by the residents of the colony would also get treated in the STP. It is yet to be seen whether actually apart from the plot nos. 353 & 360 Kha allotted by the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun to defendant no.1 for setting up the STP, defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have actually encroached upon also into green area, if so, what to what extent. 8. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality on the part of learned trial court in rejecting the application for temporary injunction, moved by the plaintiff. Attention of this Court is drawn on behalf of the plaintiff to the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488 . However, the facts and circumstances of the said case appear to be different to the present case. Attention of this Court is drawn on behalf of the plaintiff to the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488 . However, the facts and circumstances of the said case appear to be different to the present case. There was no larger public interest is involved in said case in the construction raised by defendants. 9. For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion to the final merits of the suit, pending before trial court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.05.2013 passed by II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, in suit No.152 of 2013. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.