JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J —Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendants-respondents be restrained from interfering in peaceful occupation and use of the suit property and be also restrained from creating any hindrance in the construction work. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner has stated that she had purchased a Plot No.107, measuring 200 sq. yards through registered sale deed on 12/07/2010 from the original allottee namely; Mr. Raghuveer Singh Hada in whose name the letter of allotment was issued by the cooperative housing society. The plaintiff-petitioner is in physical possession of the plot and was making construction on it after having obtained electricity connection. It is stated that she had already constructed the boundary wall and one room earlier but now she was constructing the entire house. However, the defendants-respondents have threatened the plaintiffpetitioner from raising any further construction and therefore, the need arose for filing the suit with the prayer as noted above. 3. The learned trial court vide order dated 17/08/2017 restrained the defendants-respondents from causing any interference in the peaceful possession and use of the suit property and also in making construction on the said property. 4. The learned lower appellate court, in the appeal preferred by the defendants-respondents has, however, passed the order impugned dated 10/11/2017 setting aside the order of the learned trial court dated 17/08/2017 with further observation that the plaintiff-petitioner would be free to move any application if the interim order of status-quo passed by the Additional District Judge No.19 is in any manner changed. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the learned trial court had earlier passed an order on 25/03/2017 initially on the same terms as the final order passed in the temporary injunction. The order dated 25/03/2017 had been upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and the High Court also had upheld the order upon SB Civil Writ Petition No.9789/2017 having been preferred by the defendants-respondents with further observations that the temporary injunction application be finally decided. Now, when the temporary injunction application has been finally decided in the same terms and same order has been passed as was passed earlier on 25/03/2017, the learned lower appellate court had no occasion to change the same in appeal. 6. Now, when the temporary injunction application has been finally decided in the same terms and same order has been passed as was passed earlier on 25/03/2017, the learned lower appellate court had no occasion to change the same in appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner further submits that the suit, which is pending before the Court of Additional District No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, is between the defendants-respondents and Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and as the plaintiff-petitioner is not a party to the said suit, the status-quo order passed in the said suit could not have been applied on the case filed by the plaintiff-petitioner which is essentially to protect her own property on which she is having her possession. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner further submits that there was no occasion for the learned lower appellate court to have set aside the interim order passed by the learned trial court unless the trial court had in any manner acted beyond its jurisdiction. The learned counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kishorsini Ratansinh Jadeja Vs. Maruti Corp. & Ors, 2009 2 WLC(SC) (Civ) 475 wherein an injunction order restraining from making any construction on disputed land after the construction had already been made halfway, was found to be unjustified. Counsel has also relied on the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mushtkeen & ors. Vs. Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwala (deceased) & Ors.: (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.3645/2011) , decided on 11/12/2013 wherein the appellants were allowed to make construction subject to their own costs and risk. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & ors, 2010 Diwani Nirnay Journal 208 . 9. Appeal No.3645/2011) , decided on 11/12/2013 wherein the appellants were allowed to make construction subject to their own costs and risk. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante & ors, 2010 Diwani Nirnay Journal 208 . 9. Per-Contra, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents submits that the property could not have been sold by the society to the petitioner as the society could not have acquired the land which belong to scheduled tribe community and therefore, the status-quo order, which was existing between the defendantsrespondents and Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti relating to the land would also be operative relating to the property in question which has been purchased and allotted to the plaintiffpetitioner by Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti and therefore, the learned lower appellate court has rightly interfered with the order of injunction passed by the learned trial court. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that initially an order was passed by the learned trial court on 25/03/2017 against the defendants-respondents restraining them not to interfere with the use and construction of the property. The said order was upheld in appeal and the High Court also upheld the order. While finally deciding the temporary injunction application, order has been passed by the learned trial court on the same terms. The question relating to status-quo order having been passed between the defendants-respondents and Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiri was already in existence at the time when the earlier appeal against the interim order was decided by the learned lower appellate court. However, this Court is constrained to observe that while the learned lower appellate court upheld the interim order, he has proceeded to set aside now the order passed in temporary injunction application on the same facts which were prevalent while dismissing the earlier appeal vide order dated 09/06/2017. The same Presiding Officer of the learned lower appellate court, who passed the order dated 09/06/2017, has now set aside the injunction order in appeal vide order impugned dated 10/11/2017. Such a course ought not to have been adopted by the learned lower appellate court. 11. The same Presiding Officer of the learned lower appellate court, who passed the order dated 09/06/2017, has now set aside the injunction order in appeal vide order impugned dated 10/11/2017. Such a course ought not to have been adopted by the learned lower appellate court. 11. Even otherwise, so far as the law relating to granting of injunction on an application has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mandali Ranganna Vs. T. Ramchandra , (2008) 11 SCC 1 and it is held that the Court has not only to take into consideration the basic elements regarding existence of a primafacie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury but has also to take into consideration conduct of the parties since grant of injunction is an equitable relief. It was observed that the person, who kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the property exclusive, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. 12. In the case of Kishorsini Ratansinh Jadeja Vs. Maruti Corp. & Ors. , the observations made in the case of Mandali Ranganna Vs. T. Ramchandra , was referred with approval. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, in the present facts, it is apparent that the plaintiff-petitioner had already constructed boundary wall and one room and had also got electricity connection after having executed the sale deed on 12/07/2010. The further construction was allowed by interim direction of the trial court which was upheld by the lower appellate court and by the High Court too. Thus, while finally passing the order, which is in the same terms, as an interim direction, the trial court has only directed that the defendants-respondents are restrained from interfering with the construction work and the use of the said property. This Court has been informed that the construction has already been made upto second floor. In the circumstances too, the order passed by the learned lower appellate court is wholly unwarranted. The plaintiff-petitioner is not a party to the suit filed by the defendants-respondents against Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. The defendants-respondents have also placed before this Court the map which has been submitted to the Jaipur Development Authority where the plot of the plaintiff-petitioner has been shown as Plot No.107. The plaintiff-petitioner is not a party to the suit filed by the defendants-respondents against Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti. The defendants-respondents have also placed before this Court the map which has been submitted to the Jaipur Development Authority where the plot of the plaintiff-petitioner has been shown as Plot No.107. In the circumstances, it can be said that the plaintiff-petitioner has a prima-facie case in her favour and the balance of convenience is also in her favour. If she is not allowed to use the property, which has already been constructed upto second floor, irreparable loss shall also be caused to her. On the other hand, the defendants-respondents do not have any case to interfere with her peaceful possession. They have not taken any steps for filing any case for restraining the plaintiff-petitioner from construction or possession of the property since 2010. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment , the order impugned passed by the learned lower appellate court dated 10/11/2017 cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The order dated 17/08/2017 passed by the learned trial court is maintained. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.