JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.: The seminal issue that spiralled in the course of hearing of this application is: - If there is conflicting claim of ownership and possession in respect of a particular property, what should be the guiding factor for getting an order of temporary injunction? In the instant case, admittedly the suit property was transferred on many occasions by virtue of registered sale deeds between the predecessors of both parties. In the learned Trial Court as well as before the learned First Appellate Court those deeds were produced in support of their conflicting claims. It is pertinent to mention that which deeds are genuine or not that can be ascertained only after a full-fledged trial. The trial Court as well as this revisional Court cannot hold a mini-trial to decide the title of the property and particularly when both parties have their registered deeds in support of their contention. 2. In this case the conflicting claim of possession is also there. Therefore, the onerous duty of the Court is to rely on the documents produced by the contesting parties as regards possession and also to ascertain which document shall prevail over the other. 3. Here the plaintiff/respondent produced L.R.R.O.R. in support of their-possession, whereas defendant/appellant wanted to show that the L.R.R.O.R. is an erroneous one and for which B.L.R.O. had initiated a suo-motu proceedings for correction of the same if he gets approval from his next higher authority. Therefore, the defendant/appellant’s claim is prospective as well as speculative. On the contrary, as on today, the L.R.R.O.R. stands in the name of the plaintiff/respondent. It is perhaps needless to say that the L.R.R.R.O. signifies the possession of the parties. Till the L.R.R.O.R. is rectified, it is presumed that the entries in the L.R.R.O.R. is correct and it should be held that the present possession lies in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. 4. Learned First Appellate Court has taken an enormous pain and has considered the submission of the both sides in its proper perspectives. He has given a sound reason in support of his finding. Only one thing that has been omitted by the learned Court below is such, that he ought to have held as to whose possession the suit property lies at the time of hearing the miscellaneous appeal. He was supposed to mention that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession. He has given a sound reason in support of his finding. Only one thing that has been omitted by the learned Court below is such, that he ought to have held as to whose possession the suit property lies at the time of hearing the miscellaneous appeal. He was supposed to mention that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession. There are plethora of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court that an order of status quo in respect of immovable property cannot be passed without specifically recording status that is to be preserved. 5. Following judgments reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 276 (Dalpat Kumar & Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors.), (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Vs. T.Ramachandra & Ors.), 2010 (1) CHN (CAL) 597 (Unity Realty & Developers Ltd. Vs. Shri Amit Kumar Mitra & Ors.), (2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 190 (Ramesh Vajabhai Rabari Vs. Pratiksha Real Estate Private), had laid down the principles as to when the injunction order will be passed. 6. From the time immemorial it is settled by our Courts that whileconsidering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. It is to be judged also that grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof. The existence of the prima facie right is not to be confused with the prima facie title which can be ascertained on the basis of evidence at the time of trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself can never be the sole ground to get an injunction order. Therefore, the onerous duty of the Court is to satisfy itself that non-interference by the Court would result in ‘irreparable injury’ to the party seeking relief must establish that there is no other remedy available to the party except one grant to injunction. Therefore, the onerous duty of the Court is to satisfy itself that non-interference by the Court would result in ‘irreparable injury’ to the party seeking relief must establish that there is no other remedy available to the party except one grant to injunction. It is also a settled law that irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, which cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. This apart, the Court is to weigh the balance of convenience and inconvenience. Therefore, the Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise the judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. 7. Applying the aforesaid principles in the present case as well as thefinding made by this Court as above, I find that the plaintiff/respondent is armed with registered deed of conveyance and L.R.R.O.R. which indicates his primafacie right, interest and possession. Therefore, if the injunction order is not passed against the defendant/petitioner’s, the plaintiff/opposite party would be highly prejudiced. On the contrary, the defendant/petitioner will not suffer that inconvenience if the injunction order is refused. 8. Considering the circumstances I find no merit in the revisional-application. 9. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed on contest butwithout cost. The impugned order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghatal, Paschim Midnapur, is hereby affirmed. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the respective learned Courts belowfor their information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 11. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for,be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.