JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Heard Sri R.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned counsel who has put in appearance on respondent no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama. 2. Under challenge in these proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the appellate court whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent no. 2 against the order passed by the learned trial court dated 20.01.2015 rejecting the application moved for grant of interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2, CPC, has been allowed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned trial court on consideration of the relevant material available on record had rightly rejected the application moved for grant of interim injunction giving a finding that the plaintiff-respondent no. 2 had completely failed to establish a prima facie case, whereas learned appellate court has reversed the said findings ignoring the material available on record, especially the fact relating to pendency of suit instituted by the petitioner seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 31.10.2013 allegedly executed by one Sri Ram in favour of the plaintiff-respondent no. 2. Learned trial court has recorded a finding that merely because of the alleged sale deed dated 31.10.2013 the plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession over the property in question for the reason that in an earlier suit, at the appellate stage Sri Ram who is said to have executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was not found in possession over the property. Learned trial court has also observed while rejecting the application for grant of interim injunction that the defendant-petitioner, Smt Sushila is the wife of Sri Ram, who is mentally retarded and this couple has a son as well, hence the balance of convenience lies in not granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The factum of the petitioner being legally wedded wife of Sri Ram is, however, denied by learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2. 4. The law relating to grant of interim injunction is well settled in a long chain of judgments by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court. The factum of the petitioner being legally wedded wife of Sri Ram is, however, denied by learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2. 4. The law relating to grant of interim injunction is well settled in a long chain of judgments by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned court has to consider three questions; (1) as to whether the party claiming injunction has been able to make out a prima facie case, (2) as to where the balance of convenience lies and (3) as to whether the party seeking injunction shall suffer irreparable loss. 5. Learned trial court in the instant case has clearly held that only on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 31.10.2013, the plaintiff cannot be said to have established a prima facie case in her favour for the reason that in an earlier civil proceedings at the appellate stage Sri Ram the alleged vendor has not been found in possession over the property in suit. In respect of the balance of convenience, the trial court has recorded a finding that the same does not lie in favour of the plaintiff for the reason that the defendant has to take care of his mentally retarded husband and further that since Sri Ram is mentally retarded, as such she has instituted proceedings under Section 50 of Mental Health Act. In respect of the irreparable loss, it has been observed by the learned trial court that in case interim injunction is granted, the same shall result in irreparable loss to the defendant for the reason that the defendant is the wife of Sri Ram who has a son and both are dependent upon the suit property and they have no other source of livelihood. 6. Learned appellate court has however, reversed the finding primarily on the ground that if Sri Ram is said to be mentally retarded then as to how and under what circumstances, the suit for cancellation of the sale deed has not yet been filed. The said finding is absolutely perverse for the reason that along with list of documentary evidence the defendant had filed a report of the commission executed in civil suit no.87 of 2014 which is a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed. The said finding is absolutely perverse for the reason that along with list of documentary evidence the defendant had filed a report of the commission executed in civil suit no.87 of 2014 which is a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed. The said material in the form of the commission report being present on the record, the finding recorded by the appellate court that no suit for cancellation of the sale deed has been filed, is perverse as the same is based on ignorance of the material which clearly establishes that the said suit is pending. 7. For the reasons disclosed above, I find that observations made and findings recorded by the learned appellate court for reversing the order passed by the trial court are not sustainable. In fact, the reasons indicated by the appellate court for setting aside the findings recorded by the learned trial court are not plausible as the same appear to be based on non-consideration of the material available before the court below in the form of the report of the commission executed in Regular Suit No. 87 of 2014 which has been filed seeking cancellation of the sale deed. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the judgement and order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the appellate court in Civil Appeal No.08 of 2015; Smt. Jugurta v. Smt Sushila, is hereby set-aside. 9. Learned trial court is simultaneously directed to expedite the proceedings of Regular Suit No.203 of 2014; Smt. Jugurta v. Smt Sushilaand conclude the same within a period of one year, positively from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 10. However, it is made clear that neither parties to the suit shall seek any unnecessary adjournment nor the same shall be permitted by the learned court below. 11. If any appropriate application is moved by the plaintiff (respondent no.2 herein) for clubbing the Regular Suit No. 203 of 2014 with Regular Suit No. 87 of 2014, the competent authority shall pass appropriate order thereon forthwith. 12. There will be no order as to costs.