JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala Circuit Court at Nurpur, vide judgment dated 7.9.2016, passed in CMA No.7-N/XIV/10 of 2015, titled Nayyar Mineral Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surjeet Singh and others, whereby the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala Circuit Court at Nurpur, has affirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.II, Nurpur, District Kangra in CMA No.255 of 2012, in Civil Suit No.159 of 2012, dated 3.2.2015, may kindly be quashed and set aside and Civil Suit No.159 of 2012, titled Nayyar Mineral Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surjeet Singh, may kindly be heard and decided on merits." 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') maintained a suit for declaration through its Managing Director to the effect that plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.1532/904, measuring 0-20-84, hectares, situated in Mohal Pail, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') and respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') have no right, title or interest over the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff that in connivance with the Revenue Officials, defendants had fraudulently got a mutation attested behind his back and without knowledge of the plaintiff showing exchange of the suit land with the land denoted by Khasra No.1530/899, which is owned and possessed by the defendants. The defendants have also fraudently got exchange of land incorporated in the revenue record, but on the spot, the land denoted by Khasra No.1532/904, continues in possession of the plaintiff, whereas the land denoted by Khasra No.1530/899, is still under the possession of defendants No.1 to 3 and mutation No.12, which has been sanctioned by fraud has never been given affect at the spot. Defendants by taking undue advantage of the fraudulent entry trying to interfere with the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and to alienate the same, thereby causing grave prejudice to him. Defendants by taking undue advantage of the fraudulent entry trying to interfere with the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and to alienate the same, thereby causing grave prejudice to him. The plaintiff had never exchanged the suit land with the defendants and mutation No.12, dated 26.6.1993 had been sanctioned and attested at the back and without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had never authorize any person to exchange the suit land. 3. Defendants filed written statement as well as reply to the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby, they opposed the claim of the plaintiff. In written statement, preliminary objection regarding maintainability, no cause of action, estoppel and resjudicata have been taken. On merits, it is denied that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land and it is admitted that the land is owned and possessed by defendants No.1 to 3, as per the revenue record. It is also denied that defendants have wrongfully in connivance with the revenue officials got mutation of exchange of suit land attested in their favour. The plaintiff has also admitted that the exchange of land, while raising loan from the Bank, wherein he, is declared himself as owner-in-possession of the suit land and now, the plaintiff cannot wriggle out from such admission. Since, defendants No.1 to 3 are owners-inpossession of the suit land, as such, question of alleged threats on their part does not arise at all. The plaintiff has no prima facie case as well as balance of convenience in its favour. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the learned Court below dismissed the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vide order dated 3.2.2015, while holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of three ingredients in its favour i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. Being aggrieved order dated 3.2.2015, passed by the learned Court below, the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, vide judgment dated 7.9.2016, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and the order passed by the learned Court below was upheld. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that earlier suit was maintained by the respondents-defendants, who were defendants in that suit was not aware at the back of the petitioner-plaintiff that some exchange of land has taken place and he made a statement by mistake and now, when the respondents-defendants started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner-plaintiff, he maintained a suit. He has further argued that in case, status quo order is passed, the same will meets the ends of justice, as otherwise, in case, respondents-defendants alienate the suit land, the same will give rise to multiplicity of litigation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the petitioner has dragging the matter and is only to delay the matter and forced them to sell the land to the petitioner-plaintiff and abuse the process of law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in R. Gopalakrishnan vs. K. Mani, Madras High Court, Civil Revision Petition (Pd) No.570 of 2013, decided on 23.1.2019, Baldev Singh and others vs. Sangat Singh and others, decided on 12.3.2018 and Bimla Devi and another vs. Gurdev Singh and others, decided on 7.3.2018, passed by this Court, on this aspect. 7. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that in case, status quo order is passed, the same will meets the ends of justice. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 9. From the perusal of record i.e. copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09, it transpired that the suit land is owned and possessed by respondents No.1 to 3. The nature of the suit land is Banjar Kadim. The name of the petitioner no where figures in the jamabandi to be owner-in-possession of the suit land. The petitioner has challenged these revenue entries as well as mutation No.12, dated 26.6.1993 qua exchange of the suit land. Mutation No.12 qua exchange is there in the jamabandi of land comprised in Khasra No.899 owned and possessed by respondents No.1 to 3 as well as the suit land owned by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged these revenue entries as well as mutation No.12, dated 26.6.1993 qua exchange of the suit land. Mutation No.12 qua exchange is there in the jamabandi of land comprised in Khasra No.899 owned and possessed by respondents No.1 to 3 as well as the suit land owned by the petitioner. As per these jamabandies, it is prima facie established that mutation No.12, petitioner exchanged his land with the land of respondents No.1 to 3 and they are owners-in-possession of the suit land. Copy of mutation No.12 has also been placed on record to fortify such exchange between the parties. The petitioner has challenged the exchange on the ground of fraud and as such, plea of the petitioner that such exchange is result of fraud requires investigation and this fact can only be ascertained after the evidence of the parties. At this stage, respondents No.1 to 3 are owner-in-possession of the suit land and as such, plea of the petitioner that they are strangers to the suit land is not tenable. The petitioner has no prima facie case in his favour, as the validity of the exchange can only be ascertained on merits. The facts and circumstances suggest that balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner, as respondents No.1 to 3 are shown to be owners-in-possession of the suit land, as per latest revenue record. 10. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact, this Court finds that no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the petitioner, in case, the stay is not granted. On the other hand, if the stay is granted, it is the respondents, who will suffer irreparable loss. There is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below and affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court, is just, reasoned and needs no interference. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala Circuit Court at Nurpur, vide judgment dated 7.9.2016, passed in CMA No.7-N/XIV/10 of 2015, titled Nayyar Mineral Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surjeet Singh and others, whereby the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala Circuit Court at Nurpur, has affirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.II, Nurpur, District Kangra in CMA No.255 of 2012, in Civil Suit No.159 of 2012, dated 3.2.2015, may kindly be quashed and set aside and Civil Suit No.159 of 2012, titled Nayyar Mineral Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Surjeet Singh, may kindly be heard and decided on merits." 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') maintained a suit for declaration through its Managing Director to the effect that plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.1532/904, measuring 0-20-84, hectares, situated in Mohal Pail, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') and respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') have no right, title or interest over the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff that in connivance with the Revenue Officials, defendants had fraudulently got a mutation attested behind his back and without knowledge of the plaintiff showing exchange of the suit land with the land denoted by Khasra No.1530/899, which is owned and possessed by the defendants. The defendants have also fraudently got exchange of land incorporated in the revenue record, but on the spot, the land denoted by Khasra No.1532/904, continues in possession of the plaintiff, whereas the land denoted by Khasra No.1530/899, is still under the possession of defendants No.1 to 3 and mutation No.12, which has been sanctioned by fraud has never been given affect at the spot. Defendants by taking undue advantage of the fraudulent entry trying to interfere with the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and to alienate the same, thereby causing grave prejudice to him. Defendants by taking undue advantage of the fraudulent entry trying to interfere with the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and to alienate the same, thereby causing grave prejudice to him. The plaintiff had never exchanged the suit land with the defendants and mutation No.12, dated 26.6.1993 had been sanctioned and attested at the back and without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had never authorize any person to exchange the suit land. 3. Defendants filed written statement as well as reply to the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby, they opposed the claim of the plaintiff. In written statement, preliminary objection regarding maintainability, no cause of action, estoppel and resjudicata have been taken. On merits, it is denied that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land and it is admitted that the land is owned and possessed by defendants No.1 to 3, as per the revenue record. It is also denied that defendants have wrongfully in connivance with the revenue officials got mutation of exchange of suit land attested in their favour. The plaintiff has also admitted that the exchange of land, while raising loan from the Bank, wherein he, is declared himself as owner-in-possession of the suit land and now, the plaintiff cannot wriggle out from such admission. Since, defendants No.1 to 3 are owners-inpossession of the suit land, as such, question of alleged threats on their part does not arise at all. The plaintiff has no prima facie case as well as balance of convenience in its favour. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the learned Court below dismissed the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vide order dated 3.2.2015, while holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of three ingredients in its favour i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. Being aggrieved order dated 3.2.2015, passed by the learned Court below, the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, vide judgment dated 7.9.2016, passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and the order passed by the learned Court below was upheld. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that earlier suit was maintained by the respondents-defendants, who were defendants in that suit was not aware at the back of the petitioner-plaintiff that some exchange of land has taken place and he made a statement by mistake and now, when the respondents-defendants started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner-plaintiff, he maintained a suit. He has further argued that in case, status quo order is passed, the same will meets the ends of justice, as otherwise, in case, respondents-defendants alienate the suit land, the same will give rise to multiplicity of litigation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the petitioner has dragging the matter and is only to delay the matter and forced them to sell the land to the petitioner-plaintiff and abuse the process of law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in R. Gopalakrishnan vs. K. Mani, Madras High Court, Civil Revision Petition (Pd) No.570 of 2013, decided on 23.1.2019, Baldev Singh and others vs. Sangat Singh and others, decided on 12.3.2018 and Bimla Devi and another vs. Gurdev Singh and others, decided on 7.3.2018, passed by this Court, on this aspect. 7. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that in case, status quo order is passed, the same will meets the ends of justice. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 9. From the perusal of record i.e. copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09, it transpired that the suit land is owned and possessed by respondents No.1 to 3. The nature of the suit land is Banjar Kadim. The name of the petitioner no where figures in the jamabandi to be owner-in-possession of the suit land. The petitioner has challenged these revenue entries as well as mutation No.12, dated 26.6.1993 qua exchange of the suit land. Mutation No.12 qua exchange is there in the jamabandi of land comprised in Khasra No.899 owned and possessed by respondents No.1 to 3 as well as the suit land owned by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged these revenue entries as well as mutation No.12, dated 26.6.1993 qua exchange of the suit land. Mutation No.12 qua exchange is there in the jamabandi of land comprised in Khasra No.899 owned and possessed by respondents No.1 to 3 as well as the suit land owned by the petitioner. As per these jamabandies, it is prima facie established that mutation No.12, petitioner exchanged his land with the land of respondents No.1 to 3 and they are owners-in-possession of the suit land. Copy of mutation No.12 has also been placed on record to fortify such exchange between the parties. The petitioner has challenged the exchange on the ground of fraud and as such, plea of the petitioner that such exchange is result of fraud requires investigation and this fact can only be ascertained after the evidence of the parties. At this stage, respondents No.1 to 3 are owner-in-possession of the suit land and as such, plea of the petitioner that they are strangers to the suit land is not tenable. The petitioner has no prima facie case in his favour, as the validity of the exchange can only be ascertained on merits. The facts and circumstances suggest that balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner, as respondents No.1 to 3 are shown to be owners-in-possession of the suit land, as per latest revenue record. 10. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact, this Court finds that no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the petitioner, in case, the stay is not granted. On the other hand, if the stay is granted, it is the respondents, who will suffer irreparable loss. There is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below and affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court, is just, reasoned and needs no interference. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.