JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Plaintiff, Paras Ram (petitioner herein) filed a suit for declaration of his status over the suit land allegedly possessed by him, with a further prayer for injunction, restraining the defendants (Kiran, Prithi Chand and Indu – respondents herein) from interfering with the nature and user thereof. 2. In the written statement defendants averred that Shri Prithi Chand (defendant No. 2) and Smt. Indu (defendant No. 3) had sold the land to Smt. Kiran (defendant No. 1) vide registered sale deed executed in the year 2014, where after entries of ownership were also recorded in the revenue record with the preparation of revenue record and carving out of a separate tatima (spot map & revenue record). The construction so raised is exclusively over the land under the ownership and possession of Smt. Kiran (defendant No.1). 3. In an application, so filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo, qua nature and possession of the suit land. Order dated 4.12.2015, so passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. in CMP No. 7-K/6 of 2015 (Civil Suit No. 6-K/1 of 2015), titled as Paras Ram vs. Kiran & others, came to be assailed by the defendants and vide impugned order dated 11.4.2016, passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 01ADJ-II/14 of 2016, titled as Kiran & others vs. Paras Ram, the lower appellate Court set aside the same by allowing the appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record so made available in Court, this Court, prima facie, is of the view that three ingredients so required to be established by the plaintiff, entitling him for grant of relief of interim injunction, are lacking in the instant case. 5. Law with regard to grant of interim injunction is now well settled. 6. It is elementary that grant of an interlocutory injunction is a matter requiring exercise of discretion by the Court for which the following tests apply:- (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 loss and injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 7. 7. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the exercise of legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and remain uncertain till they are established on evidence at the trial. The relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff, during the period before which 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. [Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & others, (1990) 2 SCC 117 ; Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & others vs. Coca Cola Co. & others, (1995) 5 SCC 545 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Sriman Narayan & another, (2002) 5 SCC 760 ; Kishore Kumar Khaitan & another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 ; M. Gurudas & others vs. Rasaranjan & others, (2006) 8 SCC 367 and Purshottam Vishandas Raheja & another vs. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja & others, (2011) 6 SCC 73 ] 8. In the instant case, revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 2009-2010 reflects Shri Prithi Chand and Smt. Indu to be the owners of the suit land. Vide sale deed such ownership and possession of the land came to be transferred in favour of Smt. Kiran. Thus construction, so raised on the spot is not over joint land but in fact over the land, subject matter of said sale deed. Possession of Smt. Kiran over the suit land cannot be said to be unauthorized. Revenue record corroborates such fact. 9. Thus construction, so raised on the spot is not over joint land but in fact over the land, subject matter of said sale deed. Possession of Smt. Kiran over the suit land cannot be said to be unauthorized. Revenue record corroborates such fact. 9. Hence, prima facie, it cannot be said that plaintiff has been able to establish that (a) he has a strong prima facie case for grant of relief of injunction in his favour; (b) in the absence of grant of injunction, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to him which cannot be compensated in terms of money; or (c) balance of convenience lies in his favour. 10. Unless and until Court is prima facie convinced of existence of all the three ingredients, interim injunction, as prayed for, cannot be granted and that too as a matter of routine. As such, this Court finds no reason to interfere, insofar as reasoning adopted and findings returned in reversing the order of grant of injunction, so passed by the trial Court is concerned. 11. However, in the impugned order dated 11.4.2016 one notices one disturbing feature. The Presiding Officer of the lower appellate Court, is of the rank of Additional District Judge. While deciding the appeal, he referred to and relied upon judicial precedents. Rather than applying the ratio decidendi or coming to the conclusion that principles laid down therein are applicable to the instant facts, he simply reproduced the head-notes of the said decisions as is evident from paragraphs 15 to 18 of his order reproduced as under: “15. Similarly I also place reliance on the law laid down in (No. 1) Shiv Chand vs. Manghru & ors. Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 413 as under: “Important Point:- A person in joint possession of land cannot change the nature of land unless partitioned or consented by other persons in joint possession. However, if separate possession is established no injunction to restrain the other from construction can be passed. A. Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 36 – Injunction grant of – Separate possession proof – Where the plaintiff/appellant admitted separate possession on the property from the time of predecessor and on death of predecessor the appellants came in possession of that portion, which was held by their predecessor. The parties cannot said to be in joint possession. Held the appellants not entitled for injunction against the respondent. (Para-9). 16. The parties cannot said to be in joint possession. Held the appellants not entitled for injunction against the respondent. (Para-9). 16. Similarly I also place reliance on the law laid down in Jaishi Ram & anr. versus Kamal Dev & ors. 2008 (1) S.L.J. (H.P.) 715 as under: “Joint Property – In the present case, for fourteen years the appellants accepted the change ofuser made by respondents on the suit land by raising construction thereon. – Fourteen years of silence is more than sufficient to hold that appellants accepted the construction raised by the respondents on the suit land – Therefore, after fourteen years they cannot question the construction raised by the respondents on the suit land – The remedy, if any, available to the appellants is to partition the suit land and not a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents – Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other co-owners, it is not open to any one to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition – Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram (AIR 1961 Pun 528)”. 17. Further I also place reliance on the law laid down in Payar Singh vs. Narayan Dass & ors. 2010 (2) Him.L.R. 751 as under: “Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 115 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 39 R. 1 & 2 – Temporary Injunction – Suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction – Parties are in separate possession under family settlement – Petitioner has already constructed his house – It is not the stand of petitioner that respondents are raising construction on an area which is more than their share – Case of respondents is that petitioner has constructed his house on a better portion of land – Photographs indicate sufficient gap between already constructed house of petitioner and under construction house of the respondents – Respondents are claiming possession over the suit land under family arrangement i.e. with the consent of the petitioner over which they are raising construction – Respondents have thus established prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss in their favour – Petitioner not entitled to temporary injunction to restrain respondents to raise construction on suit land.” 18. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a case 2010 (2) RCR(Civil), titled as Ram Chander Versus Gobind Ram and other has held as under: “Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 41 (i) – Injunction against – A co-sharer himself in possession of part of property having raised construction himself, cannot say that raising of construction by the other co-sharer would tantamount to wasting or illegitimately using the property – He is not entitled to injunction against his co-sharer.”” 12. It is this practice which needs to be deprecated. Head-notes are prepared by Reporters which may or may not be correctly prepared. In any event principle of law laid down is not the head-notes but the body of the judgment and whether the said principle is applicable to the attending facts or not is for the Court to consider and if applicable, accordingly apply the same. Unfortunately, this practice of merely reproducing the head-notes or lengthy paragraphs of the precedents, without discussing the principle of law and its applicability to the given facts, is becoming more prevalent. 13. Reliance on the judgments, be that of the High Courts or the Supreme Court, is for ascertaining the ratio decidendi and considering its applicability to the given facts. Judicial Officers are expected to read the entire judgment and not the head-notes, for as already observed, head- notes simply reflect the understanding and wisdom of the Editor. In this regard, with profit, following observations made by the learned Judge in Akhilesh Jindani (Jain) & another vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2002 CrLJ 1660 (Chhatisgarh High Court) are reproduced as under:- “18. … … The Judges do not prepare placitum, they deliver the judgments. The Editors do not deliver judgments but prepare Head-note/placitum according to their understanding. It is expected of all concerned that before placing reliance upon the words employed in placitum, they would read the judgment and try to appreciate that under what particular circumstances a particular judgment was delivered by the Court. When a fact-based judgment is delivered by the Court, then, the said judgment would be applicable to a case of similar facts; but when the law is interpreted in a particular judgment, then, whenever question of said interpretation arises, the earlier judgment would be cited as precedent.” 14. When a fact-based judgment is delivered by the Court, then, the said judgment would be applicable to a case of similar facts; but when the law is interpreted in a particular judgment, then, whenever question of said interpretation arises, the earlier judgment would be cited as precedent.” 14. Though in a case of infringement of copyright, the Apex Court in Eastern Book Company & others vs. D.B. Modak & another, (2008) 1 SCC 1 , whereby Court was examining the functions, duties and rights of an Editor in preparing the head-notes of the judgments delivered by the Judges, observed that even an Editor is required to read whole of the judgment and understand the questions involved in the case. 15. In a totally different context, but relating to the issue in question, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in Atmaram vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation, 2011 (2) BomCR 577 , also observed that even a head-note of the section is not an authoritative text and it is the language of “substantive Section itself which is determinative in interpretative exercise”. 16. This Court must acknowledge the efforts put in by Sh. Neeraj Gupta, learned Advocate, in assisting the Court on this issue. During the course of hearing he was present in the Court and invited attention of this Court to several decisions. Head-note, as he points out, is a brief summary of a particular point of law, that is added to the text of a court decision to aid readers in locating discussion of a legal issue in an opinion. 17. He also invites attention of the Court to the decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court in United States vs. Detroit Timber & Lumber Company, 200 U.S. 321 (1906), to the effect that head-notes have no legal standing and therefore do not set precedent. 18. Decisions on the issue can be multiplied. 19. Reproduction of the head-notes/paragraphs of decisions, by the Officer of the level of Additional District Judge is only reflective of lack of proper understanding of law as how the decisions are to be appreciated and applied. It lacks maturity on the part of the Officer, reflective of lack of proper training. 20. Decisions on the issue can be multiplied. 19. Reproduction of the head-notes/paragraphs of decisions, by the Officer of the level of Additional District Judge is only reflective of lack of proper understanding of law as how the decisions are to be appreciated and applied. It lacks maturity on the part of the Officer, reflective of lack of proper training. 20. Under these circumstances, this Court recommends that the Judicial Academy of the State conducts a course for the concerned Judicial Officer on the issue in which the Officer who passed the order dated 11.4.2016, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 01ADJ-II/14 of 2016, titled as Kiran & others vs. Paras Ram, is made to participate. 21. Petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. However, directions contained shall be complied with by all the authorities. Registrar (Judicial) to take follow up action.