JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with judgment dated 26.12.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi in CMA No. 36/2019, whereby order dated 25.11.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in CMA No. 474 of 2019 in CS No. 207 of 2019 came to be set aside, petitioners-plaintiffs (in short the "plaintiffs") have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid impugned order. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the plaintiffs filed civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent-defendant (herein after referred to as "the defendant") stating therein that land comprising khewat No. 6, Khatauni No.6, Khasra Nos. 83, 607, 1322, 1324, 1325, 2092/860, 2092, 294, kitas 7, total land measuring 19-08-15 bigha and khweat No.6, Khatuni No. 7, Khasrsa Nos. 1320 and 1321 kitas 2, land measuring 00-04-10 bighas situate in Muhal Jarol/94 Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (in short "the suit land") is jointly recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and other co-owners. Plaintiffs further submitted before the court below that since the suit land is joint and not partitioned between the parties coupled with the fact that some portion of the suit land is adjoining to the National Highway, defendant without getting the suit land partitioned could not have raised construction without the consent and permission of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved and threatened with the alleged forcible construction being raised by the defendant on the suit land, plaintiffs besides filing aforesaid suit also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, praying therein for interim relief. 3. Defendant resisted the aforesaid claim by way of filing written statement as well as reply to the application, stating therein that plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts. Defendant also claimed that suit land has been privately partitioned inter-se all the co-sharers by way of family arrangement and at present, every co-sharer has been allotted separate share and they all are in exclusive possession of the separate portion of the land. Defendant also claimed that suit land has been privately partitioned inter-se all the co-sharers by way of family arrangement and at present, every co-sharer has been allotted separate share and they all are in exclusive possession of the separate portion of the land. Defendant further stated in the written statement as well as reply to the application that he is not trying to cover any area, rather due to enlargement of family and out of necessity, he has been raising construction on the dismantled old structure of toilet and flour mill, which is about 50 feet away from the road frontage over khasra No. 1322. Defendant also claimed before the court below that all the co-sharers have constructed their houses over khasra No. 1322, but such fact has not been disclosed by the plaintiffs. Defendant further claimed that plaintiffs have not disclosed the factum of their having possession over the vacant land on the road front to the extent of more than 500 feet. Defendant with a view to substantiate his aforesaid plea also placed reliance upon the report of Patwari and Kanungo, who in their report categorically stated that the suit land comprising khasra No. 1322 is owned and possessed by all the co-sharers including plaintiffs. 4. Learned trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2019, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and restrained the defendant from raising any construction on the suit land till the final disposal of the main suit. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court, defendant preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule (1) R CPC before the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., who vide order dated 26.12.2019, accepted the appeal, as a consequence of which, order of restraint issued by the Trial Court came to be set-aside. In this background, plaintiffs have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for restoration of order dated 25.11.2019, passed by the learned trial Court after setting aside judgment dated 26.12.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, Mandi. 6. In this background, plaintiffs have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for restoration of order dated 25.11.2019, passed by the learned trial Court after setting aside judgment dated 26.12.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, Mandi. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that factum with regard to joint ownership and possession of the parties over the suit land weighed heavily with the trial Court while allowing application under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs. Learned court below while passing order of interim injunction failed to take note of the specific assertion made by the respondent (defendant) that suit land stands partitioned inter-se parties by way of family arrangement. While making aforesaid assertion, defendant has further stated in the written statement that pursuant to aforesaid family arrangement, parties have not only been put to the physical possession of their shares, rather they all have raised some kind of construction over the land. Similarly, trial court also failed to take note of the fact that land comprised of khasra No. 1322 is in joint possession of the parties to the lis. 7. Plaintiffs while stating in their plaint that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, defendant and other co-sharers, have nowhere stated that over khasra No. 1322, all the co-sharers have built their houses. Factum with regard to construction over some portion of the land by the plaintiffs and other co-sharers has not been denied specifically by the plaintiffs. Similarly, there is no specific denial to the assertion made by the defendant that pursuant to family arrangement inter-se parties, all the co-sharers including plaintiffs have been put to the possession of the specific portion of the land. Similarly, this court finds that assertion of the respondent in the written statement that there was one Atta Chakki and toilet belonging to him and the structure was old and around 50 meter away from the road front has also not been specifically denied. Similarly, this court finds that assertion of the respondent in the written statement that there was one Atta Chakki and toilet belonging to him and the structure was old and around 50 meter away from the road front has also not been specifically denied. Since new facts with regard to construction by all the co-sharers over khasra No. 1322 and existence of Atta Chakki and toilet belonging to the defendant were made in the written statement, plaintiffs were duty bound to explain their position because mere denial simpliciter is not sufficient to rebut the claim, if any, of the opposite party. Denial simpliciter, if any, of the averments made by the contesting party virtually amounts to admission on the part of the other party. 8. This Court finds from the record that defendant has specifically stated in the written statement that plaintiffs were already in possession of the vacant land on the road front to the extent of 500 feet, but even such assertion never came to be refuted on behalf of the plaintiffs in their replication. In the aforesaid background, impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be said to be against the facts and law, rather court below has rightly concluded that since plaintiffs have failed to approach the court with clean hands, they are not entitled to the discretionary relief. Otherwise also, pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties as well as documents annexed therewith clearly reveal that construction allegedly raised by the defendant over khasra No. 1322 was already on the suit land and same was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Similarly, it clearly emerges from the pleadings that all the co-sharers including plaintiffs and defendant have already raised the construction over khasra No. 1322 after having got specific portion of the land in terms of some family arrangement arrived inter-se all the co-sharers and as such, learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that one co-sharer cannot be allowed to stop the construction, if any, made by other co-sharers on the ground that suit land being jointly owned and possessed is yet to be partitioned by meets and bounds, especially when he himself has raised construction over the joint land without there being any partition inter-se parties. It clearly emerges from the pleadings that defendant after having pulled down his old toilet and Atta Chakki was raising construction by covering that very portion. Apart from above, plaintiffs have been not able to dispute that they are already in possession of more than 500 feet area comprising of khasra No. 1322 abutting to road. Since plaintiffs failed to approach the court with clean hands as is evident from the pleadings available on record, learned trial Court ought not have granted discretionary relief in favour of the plaintiffs, especially when it stood established on record that plaintiffs themselves have raised construction over Khasra No. 1322 abutting to the road without there being any legal partition. 9. Factum with regard to construction over khasra No. 1322 by all the co-sharers including the plaintiffs and defendant clearly suggests that all the co-sharers of the suit land without there being any legal partition agreed inter-se them to raise construction over specific portions of the land allotted to them in some family arrangement and as such, plaintiffs who have already raised construction over one portion of the suit land cannot be permitted to stop construction by other co-sharers on the ground that land being joint is still to be partitioned in accordance with law. It is none of the case of the plaintiffs that defendant has raised or is raising construction over and above his share allotted to him in family partition arrived inter-se parties. Plaintiffs have nowhere stated that they are being dispossessed by the defendant from his possession and he is encroaching upon the area in possession of the applicants/plaintiffs. Interestingly, in the case at hand, factum with regard to construction, if any, made on some portion of the suit land by the respondent has not been specifically denied by the plaintiffs and it has been nowhere pleaded in the plaint that how much area of the khasra No. 1322 is in his possession and how much area, they are likely to get in the partition. Leaving everything aside, since all the parties have allowed themselves to raise construction over khasra No. 1322 without there being legal partition, plaintiffs being one of the co-sharers, cannot be permitted to object construction, if any, by other co-sharers on the portion of khasra No. 1322 on the ground that land is still joint inter-se parties. 10. Leaving everything aside, since all the parties have allowed themselves to raise construction over khasra No. 1322 without there being legal partition, plaintiffs being one of the co-sharers, cannot be permitted to object construction, if any, by other co-sharers on the portion of khasra No. 1322 on the ground that land is still joint inter-se parties. 10. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Kalawati V. Netar Singh and Ors, AIR 2016 HP 85 has categorically held that in case party does not specifically and expressly deny the averments made by the opposite party in the written statement and reply, the averments so made in the written statement are presumed to be admitted and court must give due weightage to the same. In the case at hand, as has been discussed herein above, averments made by the respondent with regard to construction by all the co-sharers over khasra No. 1322 in terms of family arrangement as well as existence of old structure i.e. toiled and Atta Chakki have not been specifically denied by the plaintiffs and as such, such assertions are presumed to be correct. 11. Needless to say, grant or refusal of relief of temporary injunction is purely equitable relief and while refusing/granting the same, court is required to weigh several factors before coming to any conclusion. There are three basic ingredients, which are to be taken into consideration by the court while considering prayer, if any, for interim injunction i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and sufferance of irreparable loss and injury and these all factors are required to be comparatively examined by the court. Over and above all the aforesaid factors, court while considering grant of discretionary relief is also expected to see conduct of the parties, which is most important factor. In the case at hand, material adduced on record by the respective parties clearly suggests that plaintiffs failed to approach the court with clean hands and as such, an inference can be drawn that plaintiffs with a view to have interim order in their favour suppressed material facts purposely and intentionally. In the case at hand, material adduced on record by the respective parties clearly suggests that plaintiffs failed to approach the court with clean hands and as such, an inference can be drawn that plaintiffs with a view to have interim order in their favour suppressed material facts purposely and intentionally. In the case at hand, no irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensation in terms of money, would be caused to the applicants/plaintiffs in case injunction is not granted to them and as such, no illegality and infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 12. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion as well as law relied upon, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of facts and law and accordingly, same is upheld. As such, present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Records be sent back forthwith. Needless to say, any observation/finding returned in the case at hand by this Court shall not be construed to be reflection on the merits of the main case, which shall be decided by the court below strictly on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence ought to be led on record by the respective parties before it.