Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against the order dated 28.2.2013 rendered by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48-S/14 of 2012. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Krishan Das Verma, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiffs” for convenience sake), has filed a suit for declaration that he was in physical possession of the land entered as Khasra No. 226 measuring 00-21.18 hectares situated in Mauja Kufri Junga and that by way of adverse possession he has acquired ownership over the suit land. He has also assailed validity of sale deed No. 1873 dated 17.12.2007 in favour of petitioner-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant” for convenience sake). He has further claimed that subsequent mutation No.73 dated 13.2.2008 and entries in the revenue record with respect to the suit land in favour of the defendant were illegal and wrong. He has also claimed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. 3. Defendant has filed written statement to the plaint. According to the defendant, he has purchased land in question from Virender Kumar by way of registered sale deed dated 17.12.2007 and pursuant to the sale deed, mutation was attested on 13.7.2008. 4. Plaintiff has filed an application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant from interfering in the ownership and possession of the suit land and changing the nature, alienating and encumbering the same. The application was resisted by the defendant. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.VII, Shimla dismissed the application on 4.6.2012. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order dated 4.6.2012 before the learned District Judge, Shimla bearing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48- S.14 of 2012. The District Judge partly allowed the appeal and order of trial court qua Khasra No. 193 old 26 new was set aside. Order of trial court qua Khasra No.194 old 207 new was affirmed. It is in these circumstances, present petition has been filed. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the District Judge has not taken into consideration three tests necessary for granting interim relief, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. Order of trial court qua Khasra No.194 old 207 new was affirmed. It is in these circumstances, present petition has been filed. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the District Judge has not taken into consideration three tests necessary for granting interim relief, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. He has also contended that the District Judge has wrongly relied upon the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla in Civil Appeal No.17-S/13 of 2004/02. 6. Mr. Y.P. Sood has supported the order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the District Judge. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 8. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties is that defendant has purchased the suit land by way of sale deed No. 1873 dated 17.12.2007. Mutation No.73 was also attested in favour of the defendant on 13.2.2008. As per jamabandis for the years 1996-97 and 2001-2002, Virender Kumar was the owner of the suit land. Plaintiff has filed suit claiming his title by way of adverse possession. In the earlier judgment dated 31.12.2004 rendered by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 17-S/13 of 2004/02, the lis was between the different parties. 9. Now, as far as claim of adverse possession by the plaintiff is concerned, he has to prove this by leading evidence. Plaintiff has failed to prove his possession prima facie on the suit land. Civil Judge (Junior Division) has passed a well reasoned order and has also taken into consideration that adverse possession is to be used as shield and not as weapon. The District Judge has erred in partly allowing the appeal on 28.2.2013 by ordering the parties to maintain status quo qua Khasra No. 193 old 206 new without taking into consideration the basic principles for grant of ad-interim injunction. Defendant has purchased the suit land and has also spent amount towards construction. Plea of adverse possession is not a cause of action. However, the defence can be legitimately raised in a suit for possession by the other party. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 48-S/14 of 2012 is set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. However, the defence can be legitimately raised in a suit for possession by the other party. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 48-S/14 of 2012 is set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.