JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition stands directed against the orders recorded by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Solan in Civil Msc. Appeal No. 11-2/14 of 2017, whereby, he during, the pendency of Civil Suit No. 9/1 of 2016, granted relief, of, temporary mandatory injunction vis-a-vis the plaintiff besides directed one Kulbhushan Gupta to forthwith handover keys of the demised shop to the plaintiff, one, Anil Kumar. Moreover relief of ad interim permanent prohibitory injunction, was, pronounced upon the defendants, for restraining them from theirs, during the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit, hence interfering/obstructing the plaintiff, from running the demised shop. Being aggrieved therefrom, the defendants/petitioners herein, have instituted the instant petition before this Court, whereupon they concert to beget its reversal. 2. Uncontrovertibly, one Phool Chand, held tenancy in the shop forming a part of House No.148 situated at Muaza Lower Bzar Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. The aforesaid Phool Chand expired on 30.12.2014. Upon demise, of Phool Chand, the plaintiff claimed exclusivity of rights, of, tenancy vis-a-vis the demised premises, (I) on anvil of an unregistered testamentary disposition executed on 27.08.2014 vis-a-vis him by the aforesaid Phool Chand. It is averred in the suit that, since, the occurrence of demise of Phool Chand, (ii) AND upto 21.09.2015, the plaintiff holding possession of the demised shop, (iii) hence, on anvil of the plaintiff, holding possession, vis-a-vis the demised premises/shop, for more than six months prior, to the institution of the suit, he contends, of, his holding a legitimate right to vindicate his possession. Moreover, an averment, is borne in the suit, of, since 21.09.2015, the demised premises/shop being respectively locked by each of the litigants AND of one Kulbhushan Gupta, to whom, the respective keys, of, the locks respectively, put on shutters thereof, by each of the contestants stood handed over, under supurdari, being directed to handover its possession, to the plaintiff. 3. The defendants contested the suit, by instituting a written statement thereto, wherein, they propagated that the Will propounded by the plaintiff, not, being validly executed. Thereupon, they also canvass of theirs and not the plaintiff, at the relevant time, holding possession, of the demised premises. They, in their written statements also in their replies to the apposite application, contended, that the relief claimed by the plaintiff being not affordable to him. 4. Thereupon, they also canvass of theirs and not the plaintiff, at the relevant time, holding possession, of the demised premises. They, in their written statements also in their replies to the apposite application, contended, that the relief claimed by the plaintiff being not affordable to him. 4. The landlord of the demised premises, impleaded in the extant suit, as co-defendant No.3, has, in his written statement, to the plaint not supported the plaintiff's averment, of his at the relevant stage, holding, possession of the demised premises, rather he has contended therein, of the demised premises being locked. He has also denied the factum of the plaintiff, residing, with his father, during the latter's life time. However, defendant No.7, one Kulbhushan Gupta, who also stood impleaded as a party to the suit and is arrayed as defendant No.7, has, supported the plaintiff's averments, of, his since December, 2014, whereat the demise, of, one Phool Chand, occurred, his, holding possession of the tenanted premises and has further recorded, a contention therein, of, in the morning of 21.09.2016, a quarrel erupting inter se the parties at contest, especially at the stage when the plaintiff's son, opened the locks of the tenanted premises, whereafter, the defendants No.1 to 3, proceeded to also lock the shutters of the tenanted premises. He has continued to therein record, a, contention of the matter being reported to the police and the contesting parties, being summoned by the Police at Police Station Sadar, whereat, a compromise occurred inter se them, in sequel whereof, the keys of the locks respectively put upon the shutters of the demised premises/shop, by each of the litigants, were entrusted to him. 5. The principles, for guaging the validities of granting a relief of ad interim mandatory injunction are borne in paragraph No.16, of, a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled as Dorab Cawasji Warden versus Coomi Sorab Warden and others, (1990)2 SCC 117 , paragraph whereof reads as under: “16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trail. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. ” ….(p.126-127) The aforesaid relief, has been therein expostulated, to be an equitable relief, meant only for (i) preserving or restoring the status quo, existing on the last non contested status, immediately, preceding the controversy AND for compelling undoings of illegal acts and (ii) for restoration of, that, which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. The aforesaid principles STAND further reiterated, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled as Mohd. Mehtab Khan & others v. Khushunma Ibrahim & others, AIR 2013 SC 1099 , the relevant paragraph No.12 whereof reads as under:- “12. A proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession. Questions of title or better rights of possession does not arise for adjudication in a suit under Section 6 where the only issue required to be decided is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession at any time six months prior to the date of filing of the suit. The legislative concern underlying Section 6 of the SR Act is to provide a quick remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the arena of law. The legislative concern underlying Section 6 of the SR Act is to provide a quick remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the arena of law. The same is evident from the provisions of Section 6(3) which bars the remedy of an appeal or even a review against a decree passed in such a suit.” (p1103-1104) therein also it is expostulated that (i) prima facie proof qua unjust and illegal ouster from possession vis-a-vis the apposite suit property, of the complaining party, being the sine qua non, for making an adjudication upon an application, espousing a relief for grant, of, ad interim mandatory injunction vis-a-vis the suit property concerned also it is expostulated therein (ii) that the question of title or of better rights of any of the contesting parties, is insignificant, for making any pronouncement, upon, the aforesaid application, (iii) rather the solitary indispensable principle warranting its prima facie proof, being of, possession of the suit property concerned, standing prior, to the institution of the application, being evidently held by the litigant concerned, (iv) also proof emanating, of, the aspiring litigant, holding evident possession thereof, (v) his being evidently dispossessed therefrom, by unlawful acts, of, a party, who, on the basis of superior title or superior possessory right, claims possession thereof. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the factum of validities of the Will propounded by the plaintiff, is, insignificant (vi) also any questionings by the defendants in respect of its validity, is insignificant, nor any non adjudication being meted thereupon, by the learned Civil Court is also unworthwhile, as, (viii) upon invalidity thereof being judicially pronounced, thereupon, the apposite title vis-a-vis the demised premises, as claimed by the defendants, would atain validation, (ix) whereas, for testing the validity of any adjudication pronounced, upon, the apposite application, the afore referred factum of evident settled possession thereof, being, at the relevant time, standing held by either of them, is, the more overwhelming factum to be borne in mind. 6. 6. Consequently, it has to be determined, from, the evidence on record, whether the plaintiff or the defendants/petitioners herein, satisfy the aforesaid tests, (i) thereupon, with one Kulbhushan Gupta, the signatory, of a compromise, occurring at page 87 of the record, of the learned trial Court, also who stands constituted therein, to be the entrustee, of, the keys of the locks, respectively, put on the shutters of the demised premises, by each of the contesting parties, (ii) in consonance therewith hence rearing a contention in his written statement, thereupon, he is to be prima facie construed to be credible. The imputation of prima facie credence, to the aforesaid factum (ii) underscores, an inference of prima facie, all, the contesting parties locking the disputed premises, on 21.09.2015, (iii) since then Kulbhushan Gupta, constituted, in the apposite memo, of supurdari, as prepared on the aforesaid date, to be the entrustee, of, the keys of the locks respectively, put upon the shutters of the demised premises, by each of the litigants, holding possession of the apposite keys, (iv) hence, reiteratedly his contention in his written statement, of the plaintiff/applicant, prior thereto, holding possession thereof, is to be imputed credence also, the averred contention, borne in the written statement of defendant No.7 Mr. Kulbhushan Gupta, of, a quarrel erupting inter se the contesting parties on 21.09.2015, is to be also imputed prima facie sanctity. Nonetheless, it is also to be, from other best befitting material existing on record, hence determined, of, prior to 21.09.2015, the plaintiff evidently holding settled lawful possession of the demised premises AND only thereafter, the defendants/petitioners herein, by their unlawful acts, concerting to usurp his possession, (v)whereupon, on occurrence hereat of affirmative material qua the aforestated trite factum hence spurring vis-a-vis the plaintiff, it, would be permissible for this Court, to, hold of the afore extracted principles of law, for hence imputing validation, to the impugned order also begetting satiation. 7. (i) The bills of the electricity standing defrayed visa- vis the demised premises, immediately prior to 21.09.2015, by the plaintiff. 7. (i) The bills of the electricity standing defrayed visa- vis the demised premises, immediately prior to 21.09.2015, by the plaintiff. (ii) An affirmative order being recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Solan, on an application preferred before him, by the plaintiff, wherein he sought its permission, to deposit the rent qua the demised premises, for the period commencing from 1.11.2014 upto 31.08.2015, in sequel whereto, the subsequenlty sought apposite permission by the plaintiff for its deposit, stood also accorded on 18.8.2015, (iii) begets an inference, of the denial of the landlord of the plaintiff, not, holding possession, of the demised premises prior to 21.09.2015, prima facie, not at this stage carrying any tenacity. 8. Since, the afore said application, moved, by the plaintiff before the learned Rent Controller, Solan, for his hence seeking its permission, to, deposit the quantum of rent, before him, appertained to the period commencing from 1.11.2014 upto 31.08.2015, (i) hence, with its covering the period prior to 21.09.2015, on latter date whereof, each of the contesting parties respectively put their respective locks upon the shutters of the demised premises. (ii) Besides, when during pendency whereof, the defendants/petitioners herein also instituting, an application cast under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, wherein they sought their impleadment, as co-petitioners therein, (iii) whereas, with the aforesaid application standing dismissed, (iv) besides when, the aforesaid order was, not, concerted, to be reversed by theirs making a challenge there against, before the learned Appellate Authority concerned, (v) thereupon, the disaffirmative order pronounced, upon, an application instituted by the defendants/petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC has attained conclusivity. (vi) rather also the affirmative order pronounced, upon, the plaintiff's application wherein he sought permission to deposit rent, for the aforesaid period, with respect to the demised premises, and in compliance therewith the apposite deposit, was, also made, renders a conclusion, of, the defendants/petitioners herein being estopped, to, contend of the plaintiff, not, holding possession of the demised premises, since 31.12.2014 to 21.09.2015, also they are estopped to contend that prior to the incident of 21.09.2014, the plaintiff not holding possession thereof. The defendants, on 30.06.2016, also filed an application for permission to deposit rent with respect to the demised shop, for, the period commencing from 1.9.2015 upto June, 2016, application whereof stood allowed by the learned Rent Controller Solan on 4.8.2016. The defendants, on 30.06.2016, also filed an application for permission to deposit rent with respect to the demised shop, for, the period commencing from 1.9.2015 upto June, 2016, application whereof stood allowed by the learned Rent Controller Solan on 4.8.2016. Nonetheless, the aforesaid affirmative pronouncement made upon the defendants' application, would not, tear apart the sanctity of an earlier thereof affirmative order pronounced upon the plaintiff's application, for the reasons, (i) the plaintiff's application appertaining, to, the period commencing subsequent to the demise of the original tenant, one Phool Chand; (ii) during pendency whereof, the defendants' effort to seek therein their impleadment standing rejected, (iii) hence, the affirmative order made upon the plaintiff's application, satiating the cardinal test, of, prior to the institution, of, the suit AND prior to the incident of 21.09.2014, the plaintiff holding, possession of the demised premises, (iv) contrarily, the permission, as accorded vis-a-vis the defendants, upon their application, to deposit rent qua the disputed shop, when appertains to a period commencing prior to the incident of 21.09.2015 AND lasts upto a period, when, the Appellate Court pronounced an order upon the apposite application, for relief of ad interim injunction AND when on 21.09.2015, the lawful possession of the plaintiff qua the demised premises, was, evidently unlawfully usurped by acts of the defendants, (v) thereupon defrayments of rent, if any, by the defendants, do not carry any effect nor beget satiation of the cardinal tests. (vi) More so, when the apposite contention of defendant No.7, supportive of the plaintiff, subsumes besides overwhelms all effects thereof. 9. Be that as it may, the defendants also seek capitalization, from theirs liquidating expenses towards electricity tariffs, appertaining to the demised premises, yet the aforesaid liquidations by them, are meaningless and cannot erode the tenacity, of the aforestated prima facie inference marshaled by this Court, qua, the plaintiff prior to 21.09.2015 holding settled possession, of, the demised premises, (I) given theirs appertaining, to, a period subsequent to the demise of deceased Phool Chand. Moreover, photographic evidence in respect of the plaintiff/applicant, holding, possession of the demised premises, whereto imputation of reliance, was meted by the learned Appellate Court, has not, been in the grounds of the instant revision petition, canvassed, to be not appertaining to the identity of the plaintiff also stands not therein canvassed, to be not appertaining to the demised premises, (ii) sequel whereof is of immediately prior to the incident of 21.09.2015, the plaintiff/applicant holding possession, of the demised premises, (iii) reinforced vigour, to, the aforesaid inference, is drawn, from, the factum of a newspaper cutting, occurring at page 70 of the record, of, the learned trial Court, wherein an news item is printed qua deceased original tenant, Phool Chand disinheriting one Akhil Kumar and his family members, (iv) renders hence a firm inference of the plaintiff, residing with his father throughout the latter's life time, whereas, obviously hence the defendants/petitioners, not, residing with him. Even if, the plaintiff is alloted a shop in Ganj Bazar, Solan, also if he is holding control thereof, yet effects thereof, not, undermining the effects of the aforesaid inferences, drawn, from formidable apposite material existing in respect thereto, (ii) wherefrom, it is established that prior, to and subsequent, to the demise of his father also immediately prior to the incident of 21.09.2015, his, holding possession of the demised premises. Consequently, with the material referred above hence satiating the principles borne, in the afore extracted apt portions of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, significantly also when in tandem therewith, the plaintiff establishes (a) his hence holding settled possession of the disputed premises; (b) his settled possession thereof being concerted, to be unlawfully usurped by the defendants/petitioners herein. In sequel, the order of the learned First Appellate Curt is well merited and does not warrant any interference. More so, when the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff also when in the event of refusal of the ad interim injunction, it will put the plaintiff/applicant to a loss which, cannot, be compensated in terms of money. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed and the impugned orders are maintained and affirmed. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as any expression on the merits of the case. No order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.