JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The contesting defendants No.1 to 3, under a registered deed of conveyance executed vis-a-vis them by proforma defendant No.4, acquired title to land borne on khasra No. 902. The relevant deed of conveyance in respect of the aforesaid suit khasra number stood executed on 9.4.2013. At the time of its execution, proforma defendant No.4 swore an affidavit, attested by an Executive Magistrate, wherein, he reserved a right qua user of land measuring 3 meters wide path upon khasra No. 901 vis-a-vis the contesting defendants No.1 to 3. The averments appertaining to the aforesaid creation of right of path upon defendants No.1 to 3, stand elucidated in paragraph No.2 of the apposite affidavit, affidavit whereof stands appended as Annexure P-14 with the instant petition. However, subsequent thereto under a registered deed of conveyance, proforma defendant No.4 alienated vis-a-vis the co-plaintiffs a portion of land borne on khasra No.901. Since, defendants No.1 to 3, in consonance with Annexure P-14, purportedly proceeded to excavate a portion of khasra No.901, for hence constructing a path thereon, thereupon the co-plaintiffs were constrained to institute a suit against defendants No.1 to 3 claiming therein qua a relief for permanent prohibitory injunction being pronounced upon the contesting defendants, for hence restraining them from digging and encroaching upon any portion of land borne in khasra No.901. During the pendency of the suit, an application cast under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, stood, instituted by co-plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, wherein they claimed an ad interim relief that till the conclusion of the trial of the suit, the contesting defendants No.1 to 3 be restrained from excavating any portion of khasra No. 901 for theirs thereon raising a path. The application was, on anvil of Annexure P-14, contested by defendants No.1 to 3. However, the learned trial Judge, allowed the application, thereupon with hence contesting defendants No.1 to 3 being aggrieved therefrom, they proceeded to institute an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla, who, however, reversed the verdict pronounced upon the apposite application by the learned trial Judge, rather he proceeded to permit the contesting defendants No.1 to 3, to, on anvil of Annexure P-14 and in consonance therewith construct a path upon a portion of khasra No.901. The co-plaintiffs standing aggrieved therefrom are constrained to institute the instant petition herebefore. 2. The co-plaintiffs standing aggrieved therefrom are constrained to institute the instant petition herebefore. 2. Apparently, a perusal of the written statement instituted to the plaint by the contesting defendants also a perusal of the counter claim instituted by the contesting defendants, make graphic underscorings in respect of theirs placing reliance upon Annexure P-14, Annexure whereof is an affidavit sworn by proforma defendant No.4 before the Executive Magistrate at the time contemporaneous to his executing vis-a-vis them, a registered deed of conveyance in respect of khasra No. 902, thereupon, all the aforesaid disclosures borne therein, tantamount to the contesting defendants acquiescing to the factum of theirs both attempting besides purportedly completing the apt activity of theirs constructing a path upon a portion of khasra No. 901, in portion whereof the co-plaintiffs also hold title as co-owners. 3. The learned District Judge has taken to assign credence to Annexure P-14. However, in his assigning credence to Annexure P-14, whereupon, he validated the relevant construction activity purportedly carried thereon by the contesting defendants No.1 to 3, he has mis-appraised the effect of proforma defendant No.4, in his written statement furnished to the counter-claim instituted by contesting defendants No.1 to 3, hence denying the voluntariness of his executing Annexure P-14. The aforesaid denial by proforma defendant No.4 in respect of his voluntarily executing Annexure P-14, remained efficaciously unrebutted by contesting defendants no.1 to 3. Furthermore, there is no recital occurring in the apposite sale deed in respect of user as a path of any portion of khasra No. 901 by the contesting defendants. Consequently, it was grossly inappropriate for the learned District Judge concerned to assign credence thereto rather prima facie any rights on anvil thereof in respect of any portion of khasra No.901, could not, prima facie have been legitimately agitated by contesting defendants No.1 to 3. Consequently, when at this stage the suit has, not, arrived at a stage of evidence being adduced in respect of voluntary or involuntary execution of Annexure P-14, by proforma defendant No.4 nor obviously when evidence in respect thereof has not erupted, corollary of the aforesaid is that with no prima facie rights, title or interest in respect of any portion of khasra No.901 hence ensuing vis-a-vis the contesting defendants No.1 to 3, whereupon, the recording of the impugned verdict by the learned District Judge suffers from a vice of thorough non application of mind. 4. 4. Be that as it may, till any pronouncement emanates from the Civil Court concerned upon the issue appertaining to voluntary or involuntary execution of Annexure P-14, by, proforma defendant No.4, any ascription of validation thereto by this Court or concomitant validation vis-a-vis the holding of construction activity upon any portion of khasra No.901, would, result in contesting defendants No.1 to 3 being untenably permitted to usurp the rights of proforma defendant No.4 and of co-plaintiffs upon any portions thereof, besides validating the impugned verdict would tantamount to causing irreparable loss or injury to the co-plaintiffs and to proforma defendant No.4 besides hence balance of convenience rests vis-a-vis the co-plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.4, than vis-a-vis contesting defendants No.1 to 3. 5. In aftermath, with the co-plaintiffs having (a) prima facie case in their favour, (b) balance of convenience being loaded in their favour, (c) irreparable loss or injury demonstrably accruing to them, in case relief of injunction is refused, thereupon, with evident satiation of the aforesaid trite triplicate tests, constrains this Court to reverse the verdict recorded by the learned District Judge. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order/judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Shimla in CMA No.19-S/14 of 2015 is set aside, whereas, the order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (junior Division), Court No.5, Shimla in CMA No. 51-6 of 2014 on 8.06.2015 is affirmed and maintained. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as any expression on the merits of the case. All pending applications also stand disposed off.