JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Heard Sri A.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. As the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature so with the consent of learned counsels for the parties present today, the present writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Notices to opposite parties are dispensed with. 4. Facts in brief as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that initially the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit, registered as Regular Suit No. 661 of 2010 (Smt. Munni & others Vs. Ram Sanehi & others) in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kaiserganj, Bahraich in which an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC moved, rejected by order dated 29.08.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 54/11 (Smt. Munni and others Vs. Ram Sanehi & others), dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2013 by appellant authority/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Bahraich, hence present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 6. In order to decide the controversy involve in the present case, I feel appropriate to go through the provisions for grant of temporary injunction as provided under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC under which the Courts can exercise power and grant temporary or ad-interim injunction. 7. Rule 1 of Order XXXIX lays down three circumstances where the Court may grant temporary or interim injunction if the circumstances and facts are proved by affidavit or otherwise. Firstly, where the disputed property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or from being fully sold in the execution of a decree; secondly where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with an intention to defraud his creditor; and thirdly where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff in relation to the disputed property. On proof of these on affidavits, the Court may pass an order restraining or forbearing the defendant from doing such act of wasting, damaging, alienating , sale, removal or dispossession of the property or restrain the defendant from dispossession the plaintiff from the suit property or causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to the disputed property. 8. Similarly, under Rule 2 of Order XXXIX, the Court may, by an order of temporary or interim injunction, restrain the defendant from committing breach of contract or injury complained of arising out of the same contract. However, while exercising the power under Rule 2, the Court must bear in mind that in case where the performance of a contract is not specifically enforced, damages for such breach would be the proper and adequate relief. Then in such cases injunction may not be granted. The Courts must also bear in mind the provisions of Section 41, particularly clause (e) of the Specific Relief Act, while exercising the power under Rule 2 of the Order XXXIX of the Code. According to this Section, the perpetual injunction could not be granted to restrain the breach of a contract, then in such cases the court may refuse to grant temporary injunction. 9. The principle upon which the jurisdiction can be exercised has been discussed by the author in his book "Kerr on Injunctions". The relevant portion is quoted herein below: - (at pages 410 and 411- Sixth Edition) "The Jurisdiction of the Court by way of interlocutory injunction against breach of covenant or contract being in aid of the legal right, and having for its object the protection of the property from irreparable damage pending the trial of the right, a man who seeks the aid of the Court must be able to show a good prima facie legal title to the right which he asserts. If the right at law under the covenant is clear or fairly made out, and the breach of it is clear or fairly made out, and serious injury is likely to arise from the breach, it is the duty of the Court to interfere before the hearing to restrain the breach. If the right at law under the covenant is clear or fairly made out, and the breach of it is clear or fairly made out, and serious injury is likely to arise from the breach, it is the duty of the Court to interfere before the hearing to restrain the breach. But if the right at law under the covenant is not clear or is not fairly made out, or the breach of it is doubtful and no serious injury can arise to the plaintiff, pending the trial of the right, the case resolves itself into a question of comparative injury, whether the defendant will be more damnified by the injunction being granted or the plaintiff by its being withheld. It is not necessary that the breach in respect of which the interference of the Court is sought should have been actually committed: it is enough that the defendant claims and insists on his right to do the act complained of, although he may not have actually done it. But the Court will not interfere unless it is clear that a breach is intended. The Court will not assume that a man means to violate his agreement." 10. The main object of grant of temporary injunction is to protect the rights of a party pending litigation and also to prevent future injury leaving the matter as far as possible in status quo until the suit is finally heard and the rights of the parties are finally determined. Though various principles have been laid down for the grant of temporary or interim injunction, but the Court must take into consideration three important conditions for the grant of temporary or interim injunction i.e., (i) Prima Facie Case ; (ii) Balance of Convenience ; and (iii) Irreparable Injury Priam Facie Case : - Prima facie case means the plaintiff must, by making positive averments, assert that he has a strong case and a legal right to the property in suit, which has to be preserved and protected. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove by evidence. But, at least he must show that he has a strong prima facie case and there is every chance of his success in the case. Existence of prima facie case is sine qua non for the issuance of an interim injunction, provided the two other conditions namely, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are satisfied. But, at least he must show that he has a strong prima facie case and there is every chance of his success in the case. Existence of prima facie case is sine qua non for the issuance of an interim injunction, provided the two other conditions namely, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are satisfied. Prima facie case does not mean prima facie title. Prima facie case exists whenever there are issues which need trial and adjudicating. Necessary criteria for establishing a prima facie case is that the plaintiff has to show that he has bonafidely raised a substantial question which needs to be adjudicated at the trial of the suit. Balance of Convenience : - At the same time, mere existence of prima facie case is not sufficient for the grant of injunction. The plaintiff must also show that the balance of convenience lies in his favour in grant of injunction. The Court must see that there is a bona fide contest between the parties, and then, in which side the balance of convenience lies, in the event of success, if injunction is not issued, Injunction cannot be granted if balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. In a nutshell, it is clear that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of injunction has to prove that he had made out a prima facie to go for trial and also the balance of convenience is in his favour. However, when the party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial then the question of considering balance of convenience does not arise. Irreparable Injury : - Another important ingredient is the proof of irreparable injury. A party who seeks the aid of the Court must also satisfy the Court that its interference is necessary to protect him from the irreparable injury till the legal right claimed by him in the suit is established. The term 'irreparable injury' means such injury, which is a material one and could not be adequately remedied or compensated in terms of money or damages. There are, however, certain instances where the injury although can be compensated by damages, yet if such injury totally destroys the subject matter of the suit, then that can be treated as irreparable injury. An injunction can be applied for at any stage of the proceeding. There are, however, certain instances where the injury although can be compensated by damages, yet if such injury totally destroys the subject matter of the suit, then that can be treated as irreparable injury. An injunction can be applied for at any stage of the proceeding. But, no motion should be made without notice to the other side. However, if the Court is satisfied that the delay caused by proceeding in the ordinary way would or might entail irreparable or serious mischief, then in such a case order of ex parte injunction can be passed upon such terms as the Court otherwise thinks fit and proper. 11. From the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that before an order of temporary or itnerim injunction is passed a party has to prove the existence of the above three important ingredients. But, ultimately it is for the Court to decide as to whether , in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to protect the property, which is the subject matter of the suit from being damaged. The right of a party with regard to the property could be secured by issuing prohibitory order. 12. As discussed above, where a party moves the Court for grant of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 or 2, he has to satisfy the Court that the opposite party has threatened or intended to remove or dispossess the property or threaten to dispossess him or otherwise cause injury in relation to the property or the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated or fully sold in execution of the decree as provided under Rule 1 (a) (b) and (C) of Order XXXIX or the conditions contemplated in Rule 2 of the Code. 13. The question will then arise as to whether the Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not grant temporary injunction or interim injunction in cases not covered under the aforesaid Rule. The matter has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bhaadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal ( AIR 1962 SC 527 ). Their Lordships held that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships held that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in circumstances which are not covered by the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held that no party has a right to insist on the Court's exercising that jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised by the Court only when it considers it absolutely necessary for the ends of justice to do so. 14. In the case of Kashi Math Samasthan & Anr. Vs. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 296 , the Supreme Court held: - "13. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seek for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted. Therefore, keeping this principle in mind, let us now see whether the appellant has been able to prove prima facie case to get an order of injunction during the pendency of the two appeals in the High Court." 15. In the case of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Coca Cola Co. & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 2372 , the Supreme Court elaborately discussed the scope and object of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2. Their Lordships held: - 46.The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. Ltd. & Ors. v. Coca Cola Co. & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 2372 , the Supreme Court elaborately discussed the scope and object of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2. Their Lordships held: - 46.The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests- (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. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before 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: Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. (1990 Supp. SCC 727). 16. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders under challenge in the writ petition. 17. In the result, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.