JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner/plaintiff has assailed the order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2012 (RBT 15/12), titled as Hukam Ram vs. Sangat Ram & others, affirming the order dated 6.6.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, H.P. in C.M.A. No. 323-VI of 2011, titled as Hukam Ram vs. Sangat Ram & others. In terms of the impugned orders, plaintiff’s application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. for grant of ad-interim injunction stands rejected. 2. Plaintiff Sh. Hukam Ram filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against his father Sh. Sangat Ram (defendant No. 1) and brothers Sh. Jagdish (defendant No. 2) and Sh. Govind Singh (defendant No. 3). Plaintiff avers that he purchased 0-8-0 bighas of land comprised in khasra Nos. 1928 and 2077 which is 24 shares out of 51 shares in khewat No. 194/1, khatauni No. 352. Out of respect, it was so done in the name of his father. Also he constructed a hotel on this land by taking loan in the name of his father. Now in connivance, his father and brothers, with an evil eye, wants to usurp the property. As such, they be restrained from interfering with his possession by way of permanent prohibitory injunction. They be also restrained from alienating the hotel premises. 3. On the other hand defendants, apart from refuting the averments, have made serious allegations of personal misconduct and behaviour against the plaintiff, more particularly towards his mother. 4. The Courts below, appreciating the material on record, have rejected the plaintiff’s application for grant of ad-interim injunction. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that the Courts below have correctly appreciated and applied the settled principles of law for grant of relief of injunction to the factual matrix and the material placed on record by the parties. 6. Documentary evidence in the shape of loan application, statutory record including registration certificate of the hotel, bills, vouchers etc., all establishes continuous possession of defendant No. 1 over the suit property. 7. 6. Documentary evidence in the shape of loan application, statutory record including registration certificate of the hotel, bills, vouchers etc., all establishes continuous possession of defendant No. 1 over the suit property. 7. Except for the fact that name of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue record as a co-sharer, which document was also placed before this Court, there is nothing on record to even prima facie show, much less establish, that the hotel/super-structure over the suit land, was constructed by the plaintiff. There is material on record to show that not only loan was obtained by Sh. Sangat Ram (defendant No. 1) for the purposes of raising construction but he also put it to use as a hotel. Also, prima facie, there is material to show that it is defendant No. 1 who is in possession thereof and not the plaintiff. 8. Submission that plaintiff sold his car and bought land in the name of his father, this point in time, prima facie, is unacceptable. It has come on record that plaintiff was not residing with his parents and brothers. The family was not joint. Extent to which plaintiff had love, affection and respect for his father, is evident from the alleged criminal acts/incidents in relation to which criminal case/FIR stands registered. Plaintiff tried to make an attempt to dispossess his father from the suit property. 9. The suit property was purchased in the name of Sh. Sangat Ram (defendant No. 1). How plaintiff’s name was entered in the revenue record showing him to be part-owner, is a subject matter, which the trial Court shall examine after trial. The transaction of the plaintiff is also hit by provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 10. Material placed on record, prima facie does not establish the essential ingredients, required for grant of interim injunction. It cannot be said that plaintiff has a strong prima facie case in his favour or any irreparable loss or injury would be caused to him, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, in the event of prayer of injunction being refused or that comparative mischief and inconvenience, likely to be caused by withholding injunction would be far greater than likely to arise if an order is passed in his favour. Prima facie, one cannot loose sight of the fact that father is occupying the property as an owner, there being sufficient proof by way of documentary evidence, to establish such fact. Balance of convenience also lies against the plaintiff. 11. It is elementary that grant of an interlocutory injunction is a matter requiring exercise of discretion of the Court for which the following tests applies:- (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. 12. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the exercise of legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and remain uncertain till they are established on evidence at the trial. The relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff, during the period before which that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury, by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action, if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The Court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies. [[See: Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & others, (1990) 2 SCC 117 ; Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & others vs. Coca Cola Co. & others, (1995) 5 SCC 545 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Sriman Narayan & another, (2002) 5 SCC 760 ; Kishore Kumar Khaitan & another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 ; M. Gurudas & others vs. Rasaranjan & others, (2006) 8 SCC 367 and Purshottam Vishandas Raheja & another vs. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja & others, (2011) 6 SCC 73 ]] 13. Considering the fact that the dispute is inter se father and son, Court made an endeavour to have the matter resolved amicably. The matter was also referred for mediation. Considering the fact that the dispute is inter se father and son, Court made an endeavour to have the matter resolved amicably. The matter was also referred for mediation. Unfortunately the issues could not be resolved amicably. 14. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons, petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim orders stand vacated. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.