JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 12.7.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 01 of 2017 reversing the order dated 09.12.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu in CMA No. 34-vi/2016, whereby application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ''CPC'') having been preferred on behalf of petitioner-applicant plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ''plaintiff-applicant'') came to be allowed, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking therein restoration of order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, after setting aside order dated 12.7.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P. 2. Necessary facts, as emerged from the record, are that the plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants-respondents No. 1 and 2 or their agents (for short ''respondents No. 1 and 2'') from causing any unlawful interference over the peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiff-applicant in the residential two storeyed RCC building standing over Khasra No. 3043/1995, Khata/Khatauni No. 230/240, as incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009, situate in Mohal Balagar, Kothi Shikari, Tehsil Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., averring therein that the aforesaid building was constructed in the year 2008 by the husband of the plaintiff applicant during his life time and since then he along with his family members had been living peacefully thereon. Plaintiff applicant further averred that after the death of the husband of the plaintiff-applicant, she became absolute owner in possession of the said building and respondents are strangers to the suit property, having no right, title or interest in any manner whatsoever. With the aforesaid pleadings, plaintiff-applicant prayed that respondents No. 1 and 2 be restrained from dispossessing her from the said building in any manner whatsoever. 3. Plaintiff-applicant alongwith aforesaid suit also preferred an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, seeking therein interim directions. Inder Singh, husband of the plaintiff applicant, was original owner in possession of the land measuring 1-6-0 bighas being 141/288th share in the suit land and he, during his life time, had constructed two storeyed RCC building over the suit land and had been residing in the same alongwith his family. Inder Singh, husband of the plaintiff applicant, was original owner in possession of the land measuring 1-6-0 bighas being 141/288th share in the suit land and he, during his life time, had constructed two storeyed RCC building over the suit land and had been residing in the same alongwith his family. Husband of the plaintiff-applicant expired in the year 2010, where after his estate including disputed house was inherited by the plaintiff-applicant, her sons and daughter, but the plaintiff-applicant claimed that she is absolute owner in possession of the disputed house as her both sons had been living separately in separate houses, whereas her daughter resides in her matrimonial house. Plaintiff-applicant further claimed that her son Tej Ram sold his land measuring 0-6-10 bighas being 141/1152th share in the suit land to respondent No. 3 vide sale deed dated 25.10.2013. Plaintiff-applicant further averred that respondent No. 3 raised loan from respondent No. 1 against the land purchased by him from Tej Ram for raising construction of house thereon, but, at the spot, he never raised construction of his house. Respondents No. 1 and 2 without verifying whether respondent No. 3 had constructed his house or not wrongly and illegally affixed a notice on the door of the disputed house under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''SRFASI Act'') indicating therein that possession of house has been taken on 16.02.2016, whereas disputed house is/was neither the subject matter nor respondent No. 3 ever constructed the same and as such, respondents No. 1 and 2 have no right to take forcible possession of the disputed house owned by the plaintiff-applicant. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2, by way of reply to the main suit as well as to the application denied aforesaid claim of the plaintiff-applicant. Above referred respondents, while admitting that husband of the plaintiff-applicant was joint owner in possession of the suit land, specifically denied that husband of the plaintiff-applicant had constructed the disputed house during his life time and since then was living therein with his family. Respondents No. 1 land 2 specifically claimed that they have no concern with the house, if any, constructed by the husband of the plaintiff-applicant, rather they have taken symbolic possession of the house over the suit land constructed by respondent No. 3 under Section 34 of the SRFASI Act. Respondents No. 1 land 2 specifically claimed that they have no concern with the house, if any, constructed by the husband of the plaintiff-applicant, rather they have taken symbolic possession of the house over the suit land constructed by respondent No. 3 under Section 34 of the SRFASI Act. Abovementioned respondents further claimed that demarcation of the house was got conducted on 20.10.2015, wherein it was found that respondent No. 3 had purchased land measuring 0-6-10 bighas from Tej Ram and thereafter, he constructed residential house thereon by raising loan from respondent No. 1. Respondents further claimed that nobody including plaintiff-applicant raised any objection at the time of demarcation and the present application as well as main suit have been filed in connivance with respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 further alleged that loan account of respondent No. 3 had become NPA, but after recovery of Rs. 2,05,000/-, it was upgraded on 20.10.2015, but thereafter due to non-payment of regular interest and installments, account of respondent No. 3 was again declared as NPA on 31.12.2015. Thereafter steps were taken by respondents and a notice under Section 13(4) of the SRFASI Act was issued and symbolic possession of the house was taken on 16.02.2016. Land and house of respondent No. 3 were demarcated on the spot after due verification and identification and at no point of time, objection, if any, was ever raised by the applicant or any other legal heirs of Inder Singh i.e. husband of the plaintiff-applicant, qua the disputed house, which was taken into possession by respondents 1 and 2 under SRFASI Act. Respondents No. 1 and 2 further claimed that, after having issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SRFASI Act, symbolic possession of the house was taken on 16.02.2016 and respondent No. 3 offered to sell the house vide separate application moved to respondent No. 1. 5. Respondent No. 3 also resisted/refuted the claim of the plaintiff-applicant by filing reply to the application as well as written statement to the main suit, stating therein that husband of the plaintiff-applicant was not owner in possession of the suit land. 5. Respondent No. 3 also resisted/refuted the claim of the plaintiff-applicant by filing reply to the application as well as written statement to the main suit, stating therein that husband of the plaintiff-applicant was not owner in possession of the suit land. He specifically denied that husband of the plaintiff-applicant had constructed the disputed building over the suit land in the year 2008, rather he claimed that he had purchased land measuring 0-6-10 bighas with single storeyed incomplete structure from Tej Ram, who happened to be son of the plaintiff applicant, where after he, after having raised loan from the bank, constructed second storey upon the single storey and the same is in his possession. Respondent No. 3 specifically denied that disputed building was inherited by the plaintiff-applicant. 6. Learned trial Court, on the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the parties, came to the conclusion that Tej Ram i.e. son of the plaintiff-applicant had constructed residential house over the suit land, which was jointly owned and possessed by Inder Singh i.e. husband of the plaintiff applicant and father of Tej Ram and as such respondents No. 1 and 2 have no right to take actual possession of the aforesaid building and auction the same till it is not established on record that the disputed house in fact has been constructed by respondent No. 3 on the suit land. 7. Learned Additional District Judge, subsequently in the appeal having been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, set aside the aforesaid restraint order passed by the trial Court and vide judgment dated 12.07.2017 held the plaintiff-applicant not entitled to the relief of injunction. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff-applicant is before this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein restoration of order dated 9.12.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., after setting aside judgment dated 12.07.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu in CMA 01/2017. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. During proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge vis-a-vis pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof certainly not persuade this Court to agree with the contention of Shri Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel representing the plaintiff that learned District Judge, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents, failed to appreciate that all ingredients for deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC were met by the plaintiff applicant, rather this Court, after having carefully examined the contents of application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC vis-avis reply and written statement filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, has no hesitation to conclude that finding returned by learned Civil Judge, especially in para-11 of order dated 9.12.2016, is totally contradictory to the demarcation report placed on record by respondents No. 1 and 2, wherein it is/was categorically reported that earlier Tej Ram was owner in possession of the land measuring 0-6-10 bighas out of Khasra No. 3043/1995 i.e. suit land and he had constructed one RCC building and one Kacha house thereon. As per aforesaid demarcation report, Tej Ram, who happened to be one of the legal heirs of Inder Singh i.e. original owner of the property, had gifted his share measuring 0-6-10 bighas in the suit land to respondent No. 3. 10. Interestingly, learned trial Court, while taking note of gift deed made by Tej Ram in favour of respondent No. 3, failed to take note of the fact that as per report of demarcation, two houses existing on the spot were constructed by Tej Ram. It is not understood that once trial Court had come to the conclusion that respondents were able to prove on record by placing on record demarcation report that two houses existed on spot and same were constructed by Tej Ram, how it could conclude that there is nothing on record from where it can be inferred that Tej Ram had constructed any house over the suit land jointly owned and possessed by Inder Singh i.e. the husband of the plaintiff applicant and father of Tej Ram. Similarly, there appears to be no dispute interse parties with regard to sale of share of Tej Ram, who vide sale deed dated 25.10.2013 sold land measuring 0-6-10 bighas in favour of respondent No. 3. 11. Though respondents No. 1 and 2, while refuting the claim put forth by the plaintiff-applicant in the main suit as well as interim application, termed the suit to be collusive but respondent No. 3 specifically denied in his reply that house in question was constructed on the suit land in the year 2008 by the husband of plaintiff-applicant, rather he has claimed that he had purchased the land measuring 0-6-10 bighas with single storeyed incomplete structure from Tej Ram i.e. son of the plaintiff applicant. He has further claimed that after having raised loan from the bank, he raised second storey thereon and the same is in his possession. It also emerge from the record that at the time of demarcation, statement of one Shri Maine Ram son of Shri Tej Ram was recorded and at that time, no objection either by Tej Ram or other co-sharers was raised. Record further reveals that respondent No. 3, while obtaining loan from respondents No. 1 and 2, had mortgaged his land in their favour and at the time of release of second installment, bank official visited the spot and even at that time no objection was raised by the plaintiff-applicant or other co-sharers. There is no denial, if any, with regard to loan availed by respondent No. 3 qua the suit property, rather plaintiff-applicant herself has stated in her application that loan was availed by respondent No. 3 from respondents No. 1 land 2 for raising construction over the suit land, which he had purchased from Tej Ram. 12. After having carefully perused material available on record, this Court is unable to accept the contention of Shri Sunil Mohan Goel that plaintiff-applicant successfully established on record that respondent No. 3 had only purchased vacant land from Tej Ram and there was no house constructed on the same. Similarly, there is no explanation, if any, available on record that why objection, if any, was not raised by plaintiff-applicant as well as other co-shares at the time of demarcation got done by respondents No. 1 and 2. Similarly, there is no explanation, if any, available on record that why objection, if any, was not raised by plaintiff-applicant as well as other co-shares at the time of demarcation got done by respondents No. 1 and 2. Since it clearly emerge from the record that respondent No. 3, who had taken loan from respondents No. 1 and 2, had failed to deposit/repay the loan amount, after having received notice under Section 13(4) of the SRFASI Act, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that bank was left with no option except to take the possession of the land and house of the borrower and sell the same for recovery of the loan amount. Once respondent No. 3 himself claimed that he had raised construction of second storey on the land purchased by him from Tej Ram after having obtained loan from respondents No. 1 and 2 and he is in possession of the same, no injunction could be granted to plaintiff applicant, who was unable to prove on record that she is in possession of the suit property. 13. In the case at hand, plaintiff-applicant, merely on the ground that respondent No. 2 has no right to take physical possession of the house belonging to her, could not be granted injunction as prayed for by way of application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Having perused the record, this Court finds that balance of convenience lies in favour of respondents, who successfully proved on record that respondent No. 3 had taken loan for raising construction on the suit land and he despite notice issued to him under Section 13 (4) of the SRFASI Act failed to repay the same. Similarly, this Court finds from the record that respondent No. 3, despite sufficient opportunities granted to him, failed to repay the loan amount by way of installments as agreed interse him as well respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and as such irreparable loss would be caused to respondents No. 1 and 2, in case they are restrained from taking possession of the land and the house of the borrower i.e. respondent No. 3. 14. 1 and 2 and as such irreparable loss would be caused to respondents No. 1 and 2, in case they are restrained from taking possession of the land and the house of the borrower i.e. respondent No. 3. 14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Misc.Appeal No. 01 of 2017 and as such the same is up-held and that of the order dated 9.12.2016 passed in CMA No. 34-vi/2016 by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kullu, H.P. is set aside. This petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.