JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against judgment dated 6.6.2019 passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in CMA No. 3-CMA/14 of 2019, affirming the order dated 7.12.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in CMA No. 135/2018 in Civil Suit No. 85/1 of 2018, whereby an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 CPC, having been filed by petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') praying therein to restrain the respondent-defendant (hereinafter, 'defendant') from interfering in the land comprised of Khata Khatauni No. 215, measuring 85-40 square metre, situate in Mauja Rajgarh-II, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, 'suit land') either by himself, or through his agents, till disposal of the main suit, came to be dismissed. 2. For having a bird's eye view of the matter, certain undisputed facts, as emerge from pleadings adduced on record by the parties are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he and proforma defendants are co-owners-in-possession of the suit land, as well as seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No.1 from raising construction, changing the nature and causing interference in the suit land. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that he being resident of Village Chuni, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, is one of the shareholders of the Shamlat land in revenue village Rajgarh. He averred that the Shamlat land has been reverted back to the shareholders of Shamlat and as such, shareholders of Shamlat land have become owners, as a consequence of which, plaintiff and proforma defendant have become co-owners in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1 tried to cut bushes from the suit land on 1.2.2018 by employing labour and also tried to take forcible possession of the suit land and when plaintiff tried to stop him, defendant proclaimed that he has become owner of suit land. Plaintiff averred that he visited the office of Village Revenue Officer on 12.1.2018 but came to know that name of defendant NO.1 has been recorded in the column No. 5 in the revenue record, whereas, he has no right over the suit land in any manner. Plaintiff averred that he visited the office of Village Revenue Officer on 12.1.2018 but came to know that name of defendant NO.1 has been recorded in the column No. 5 in the revenue record, whereas, he has no right over the suit land in any manner. Plaintiff averred that in the copy of Jamabandi for the years 1987-88, land has been shown to be Shamlat Patti Gadala Hasb Rasd Khewat and in the column of possession same has been shown as Maqbuza malkaan. In the Jamabandi for the years 1992-93, Khasra number has been denoted as 653/385 measuring 0-0-2 Bigha and name of defendant No.1 has been smuggled into the revenue record in Column No.5 without any basis with collusion of the revenue staff. Alongwith said plaint, plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 CPC praying therein to restrain defendant No.1 from causing any kind of interference in the suit land, allegedly owned and possessed by plaintiff and proforma defendant during the pendency of the civil suit. 3. Aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiff came to be resisted by defendant No.1, who in his written statement alleged that Khasra No. 1343 and 1344 were part of old Khasra No. 385/396/96 Khata Khatauni No. 151/6, min, situate in revenue village Rajgarh. One Surat Ram son of Ishru, was in possession of 0-3 Biswa of land in Khata Khatauni No. 151/6 min, at the spot. Defendant No.1 alleged that above named Surat Ram had constructed a Kachha residential house on land measuring 0-3 Biswa but since he was in need of money, he sold the aforesaid land alongwith debris of Kachha house for a consideration of Rs.5000/- to him and in this regard a sale deed was executed by Surat Ram in his favour on 6.12.1985. Defendant No. 1 also claimed before learned court below that he filed an application for correction of revenue entries in his favour regarding 0-3 Biswa of land i.e. Case No. 32/89 and same was decided on 11.9.1989. Defendant No. 1 also claimed before learned court below that he filed an application for correction of revenue entries in his favour regarding 0-3 Biswa of land i.e. Case No. 32/89 and same was decided on 11.9.1989. Defendant No.1 claimed before learned Court below that all the stake holders of land in question were summoned by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rajgarh and in that process, one Prem Chand, who happened to father of the plaintiff, raised objection with regard to correction of revenue entries but subsequently, matter was compromised inter se defendant No.1 and Prem Chand and in the settlement, it was agreed inter se parties that out of 0- 3 Biswa of land, land to the extent of 0-2 Biswa shall be occupied by defendant No.1 as owner-in-possession whereas, remaining 0-1 Biswa land will be occupied by Prem Chand, as owner-in-possession. Defendant No.1 claimed before learned court below that on the basis of aforesaid settlement inter se Prem Chand, father of plaintiff, order was passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 19.9.1999, whereafter, land measuring 0-2 Biswa occupied by defendant No.1 came to be depicted as Khasra No. 653/385/96/1, whereas, 0-1 Biswa of land owned and possessed by Prem Chand, was depicted as Khasra No. 653/385/96/1 in the Tatima. In the aforesaid background, defendant claimed before learned court below that on account of correction ordered by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rajgarh, Khasra No. 653/385/96/1 measuring 0- 2 Biswa has been shown as Khasra No. 1344 and Khasra No. 653/385/96/2 measuring 0-1 Biswa shown as Khasra No. 1343. Lastly, defendant No.1 claimed before learned court below that the suit at hand has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with his father, Prem Chand, with a view to grab land of the defendant No.1, as the same is a valuable land and falls in the jurisdiction of Nagar Panchayat area, Rajgarh. 4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajgarh, vide order dated 7.12.2018, declined the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff to restrain defendant No.1 from raising any sort of construction on the suit land. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajgarh, plaintiff filed an appeal before learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, which also came to be dismissed vide order judgment dated 6.6.2019. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajgarh, plaintiff filed an appeal before learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, which also came to be dismissed vide order judgment dated 6.6.2019. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying there to set aside aforesaid judgment and order passed by learned Courts below. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is well settled law that before grant of injunction, a court is required to satisfy itself that the party praying for the relief has a prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in its favour. Besides above, while granting injunction, court is also required to consider whether refusal to grant injunction would cause irreparable loss/injury to such party. While deciding balance of convenience, court is also required to weigh protection of the plaintiff's right against need for protection of defendant's right or infringement of right. Apart from aforesaid well established parameters/ingredients, conduct of the party seeking injunction is also of utmost important, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in case M/S Gujarat Bottling Co.Ltd. & Ors. v. The Coca Cola Co. & Ors., (1995) AIR SC 2372 . In case a party seeking injunction fails to make out any of the three ingredients, it would not be entitled to injunction. Hon'ble Apex Court in case Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. The Puna Municipal Corpn., (1995) 2 JT 504 (S.C.) relying upon its earlier judgment in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 has aptly interpreted phrases, "prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss". Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in the judgment (supra) that the phrases "prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss" are not rhetoric phrases for incantation but words of width and elasticity, intended to meet myriad situations presented by men's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances and should always be hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injury to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. The existence of prima facie right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. The court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injury to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. The existence of prima facie right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The court further has to satisfy that noninterference by the court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury but means only that the Injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The balance of convenience must be in favour of granting injunction. The court while granting or refusing injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. 8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok Kapoor vs. Murtu Devi, (2016) 1 ShimLC 207 , had an occasion to deal with the issue of injunction, wherein it, having taken note of various judgments rendered by Constitutional courts, concluded as under: "47. 8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok Kapoor vs. Murtu Devi, (2016) 1 ShimLC 207 , had an occasion to deal with the issue of injunction, wherein it, having taken note of various judgments rendered by Constitutional courts, concluded as under: "47. The discretion of the Court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff:- (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of the plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant's right or likely infringement of the defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands." 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that the plaintiff while claiming defendant No.1 to be stranger to the suit land has placed reliance upon Jamabandi for the years 1987-88, wherein suit land has been shown to be Shamlat Patti Gadala hasb rasd khewat and in the column of possession it is recorded as maqbooza malkaan, whereas, defendant No. 1 has claimed himself to be in possession of suit land as a purchaser from one Surat Ram. Pleadings available on record clearly suggest that there is no dispute inter se parties that one Surat Ram son of Ishru was in possession of 0-3 Biswa land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 151/106 and Surat Ram had constructed a Kachha residential house over aforesaid piece of land. JUDGMENT impugned before this Court clearly reveals that the suit land stands described as Shamlat patti hasb rasd Khewat in the revenue record and same has been shown to be in possession of maqbuza malkaan. Though the plaintiff has disputed the entries made in favour of defendant No.1 by claiming before learned court below that revenue entries have been made dehors the actual position on the spot without following due procedure. Though the plaintiff has disputed the entries made in favour of defendant No.1 by claiming before learned court below that revenue entries have been made dehors the actual position on the spot without following due procedure. Plaintiff claimed that the factum with regard to change in the revenue entries came into his knowledge in February, 2018, whereas, defendant No.1 in his written statement has categorically stated that after execution of sale deed dated 6.12.1985, he had applied for correction of revenue record and in that process, Assistant Collector, 1st Grade in case titled Vinod Kumar vs. Surat Ram etc. sought objections from all stake holders. None of the stakeholders save and except one Shri Prem Chand, who happened to be father of the plaintiff had objection to the prayer made on behalf of the defendant No.1 for correction of revenue record. Though above named Prem Chand claimed himself to be in possession of Khasra No. 653/385/96 but Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, after having visited the spot, found defendant No.1 to be in possession of 2 Biswa of aforesaid land and accordingly said area came to be depicted as Khasra No. 653/385/96/1. Prem Chand, father of the plaintiff was put in possession of 1 Biswa of aforesaid Khasra number and accordingly, that portion was depicted as Khasra No. 653/385/96/2. On the basis of aforesaid spot visit by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, revenue entries were changed and as such, it cannot be said that change in the revenue record was without any basis, rather, same was done by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade in accordance with law. Otherwise also, plaintiff has nowhere disputed that at present Khasra No. 653/385/96/1 measuring 02 Biswa now stands shown as Khasra No. 1344, whereas, Khasra No. 653/385/96/2 measuring 1 Biswa has been depicted as 1343. Plaintiff has not been able to dispute that Prem Chand whose possession was recorded in Khasra No. 653/385/96/1 is none other than his father, because such assertion made by defendant No.1 in his written statement has been nowhere denied by the plaintiff in rejoinder. Plaintiff has not been able to dispute that Prem Chand whose possession was recorded in Khasra No. 653/385/96/1 is none other than his father, because such assertion made by defendant No.1 in his written statement has been nowhere denied by the plaintiff in rejoinder. Defendant No. 1 in his reply has specifically averred regarding correction of revenue entries pursuant to order passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rajgarh, but interestingly, such assertion has been nowhere denied/disputed by the plaintiff in the replication/rejoinder, as such, there appears to be considerable force in the submission made by defendant No.1 that the plaintiff has field suit in collusion with his father, with a view to grab land of defendant No.1, which otherwise stands recorded in his name in the revenue record. Having carefully considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands rather, with a view to succeed, has made an attempt to mislead the Court by twisting facts. Since there is no dispute that Prem Chand is father of the plaintiff, it can be safely inferred/concluded that he was in full knowledge of changes made in revenue record and his claim of becoming aware of revenue entries in favour of defendant No.1 on 1.2.2018 stands falsified. Similarly, allegation of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is stranger to suit land and he is being forcibly dispossessed of the suit land, has been rightly brushed aside by learned courts below, while considering prayer for issuance of restraint order against the defendant No.1, who has successfully proved on record that he has become owner-in-possession of suit land on the basis of correction made in the revenue record by the order of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. No material worth credence has been placed on record that at any point of time, aforesaid order passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade ever came to be laid challenge in competent court of law, as such, same has attained finality. 10. As has been noticed in earlier part of judgment, conduct of party seeking injunction is of utmost importance besides other basic principles namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injuries. 10. As has been noticed in earlier part of judgment, conduct of party seeking injunction is of utmost importance besides other basic principles namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injuries. Though, in the case at hand, having carefully perused the record, this Court finds that none of basic ingredients as have been taken note above, exists in favour of the plaintiff but, even otherwise, he is not entitled to discretionary relief on account of his conduct. Person seeking injunction must approach court with clean hands. It is settled by now that he who seeks equity must do equity. In the present case, plaintiff, who had definite knowledge that his father was recorded as owner over 1 Biswa of land (old Khasra No. 653/385/96), made an attempt to procure restrain order from the court by concealing material facts, as such, learned courts below rightly rejected his application. 11. It is equally settled by now that grant of temporary injunction cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right nor can it be denied by a court arbitrarily, rather, discretion in this regard is to be exercised by a court, on the basis of principles as have been enunciated in the various judgments passed by Constitutional courts. A party seeking relief is not only required to establish prima facie case but also irreparable injury, which may be caused to it in case of denial of grant of relief. Once in the case at hand, it stands prima facie established that the defendant No. 1 is in possession of land and in this regard change in the revenue record was made after following due process of law, learned courts below rightly rejected the application. 12. Consequently, in view of above, judgment and order passed by learned Court below are upheld. The petition at hand stands dismissed alongwith all pending applications.