JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Petitioners are defendants in Original Suit No. 569 of 1989 which was instituted by late Shri Sita Ram and after his death respondents Nos. 1 to 8 his sons were substituted at his place. 2. Dispute relates to agricultural plot No. 442 area 1.25 hectares. Plaintiff claimed that he was owner in possession of the property in dispute which was in the form of pond and he was using the same for fisheries purposes for several years and defendants had no concern with the same. Relief claimed in the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute and his right to use the same for fisheries purposes. 3. Alongwith the plaint application for temporary injunction was also filed. Defendants claimed that they were the zamindars and the plot/pond was in their possession and ownership. Munsif, Mohamadabad, Ghazipur allowed the temporary injunction application through order dated 28.5.1992 and directed the parties to maintain status quo. The said order is in ten pages. Against the said order petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 169 of 1992. Additional District Judge/Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Act Court No. 2, Ghazipur dismissed the appeal but directed the trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. Through this writ petition both these orders have been challenged. Learned counsel for both the parties stated that the suit was still pending. It is unfortunate. 4. The Courts below granted the temporary injunction merely on the finding that plaintiff-respondent was using the the pond in dispute for fisheries purposes. Merely on this ground temporary injunction could not be granted. Balance of convenience is only one of the factors for granting temporary injunction. The first and foremost requirement is of prima facie case. Admittedly name of the plaintiff was not there in the revenue record. Names of the defendants-petitioners were recorded in the revenue record. 5. Through interim order dated 5.1.2006 operation of the impugned order was stayed till the next date of listing. 6. No injunction whether permanent or temporary can be granted by Civil Court in respect of agricultural land against the recorded tenure holder in favour of a person who is not recorded tenure holder. The only exception is that a recorded tenure holder can be granted injunction against non recorded tenure holders. 6. No injunction whether permanent or temporary can be granted by Civil Court in respect of agricultural land against the recorded tenure holder in favour of a person who is not recorded tenure holder. The only exception is that a recorded tenure holder can be granted injunction against non recorded tenure holders. Even otherwise no injunction can be granted against the owner of property vide Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs., AIR 2012 SC 1727 . Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Temporary injunction application of the plaintiff respondent is rejected. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit very expeditiously. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the defendants petitioners. If any adjournment is granted to the defendants petitioners it shall be on heavy cost which shall not be less than Rs. 400/- per adjournment payable before the next date failing which they must not be permitted to participate in the proceedings of the suit. —————