JUDGMENT Satyen Vaidya, J. - Petitioners, by way of instant petition, have challenged order dated 30.12.2020 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2020, whereby the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Mandi in CMA No.205-VI/2020 in application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "Code") has been reversed. 2. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs before Trial Court and petitioners are defendants, therefore, for clarity the parties herein shall be referred by the same status as they held before learned Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of present petition are as under:- 3.1 Civil Suit bearing No.132/18/14, filed by plaintiffs, is pending before learned Civil Judge (Court No.2) Mandi with prayer to pass a decree to the following effect:- a) A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the vacant possession of the suit property by demolishing the construction, which they have raised during the pendency of the earlier suit/review petition, as is marked A-1, A-1, A-1, A-1 in the rough site plan may kindly be passed. b) A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants not to interfere and place debris and stones upon the suit land pertaining to portion B-1, B-1, B-1, B-1 may kindly be passed and a decree for mandatory injunction for removing the said debris and stones. c) A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendants not to throw the kitchen and bathroom waters on the suit land and to make arrangements of kitchen and bathroom water of their own land. 3.2 Plaintiffs have described suit property comprised in Khewat No.73/71, Khatauni No.79/77, Khasra No.130 measuring 5-0-05 Bighas, situated in Muhal Hart, Patwar Circle Samrahan/72, Illaqua Tungal, Tehsil Kotli, Distt. Mandi H.P, which undisputedly is 'Abadi Deh' land. Plaintiffs claim possession of more than 0-15-0 bighas out of the suit land, on which ancestral house of plaintiffs is stated to exist. In addition to the house, plaintiffs also claim to be in possession of vacant land measure 20 feet in width and 60 feet in length towards the back side of their house. Plaintiffs claim possession of more than 0-15-0 bighas out of the suit land, on which ancestral house of plaintiffs is stated to exist. In addition to the house, plaintiffs also claim to be in possession of vacant land measure 20 feet in width and 60 feet in length towards the back side of their house. 3.3 Suit land was subject matter of earlier suit also filed by plaintiffs against defendants which was subsequently withdrawn by plaintiffs on 01.08.2014 from the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. I, Mandi with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action. 3.4 Specific case of plaintiffs is that during the pendency of the earlier suit, defendants raised construction of a single storey building measuring 10 feet in width and 40 feet in length identified as "A-1, A-1, A-1, A-1" in the rough plan filed with plaint. This structure is said to have been raised by defendants on part of land measuring 20 feet in width and 60 feet in length, claimed by plaintiffs to be in their possession. 3.5 The plaintiffs have accordingly sought a decree of mandatory injunction against defendants directing them to restore the vacant spossession of suit property by demolition of structure. In addition, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been claimed restraining defendants not to interfere in the remaining portion of above noted vacant land denoted by "B-1, B-1, B-1, B-1" in the rough site plan prepared by plaintiffs and also restraining the defendants from throwing kitchen and bathroom water on the suit land. 3.6. The plaintiffs on 02.12.2020 instituted CMA No.205-VI/2020 in the above noted suit with following prayer:- "It is therefore, prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, this application may kindly be allowed and the respondents, their agents and servants, kith & kins, labour and relatives may kindly be restrained through an ad-interim injunction order not to raise forcible construction of their second storey on the land measuring about 10 ft. in width and 40 ft. in width and 40 ft. in length as is shown "A-1, A-1, A-1, A-1" rough drawing plan duly admitted by the respondent No.1 in his deposition in the Court till the final disposal of the suit in the interest of justice and justice be done." 3.7 As per plaintiffs, they were constrained to file the aforesaid application as the defendants in the month of November, 2020 started raising construction of second storey over and above the single storey structure on the suit land, which was the subject matter of the suit. According to plaintiffs, the defendants were taking benefit of non-working of Courts due to conditions created by Covid-19, Pandemic. Plaintiffs contended that they tried to resist the acts of plaintiffs but without success. Skeleton pleadings regarding existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss have also been made. 4. Defendants, on the other hand are contesting the suit primarily on the ground that the suit property was coming in their exclusive possession since the time of their predecessor. The defendants had their old ancestral house on the suit land. Besides parties to the suit various other residents of the Village were having their houses and specific possession on different portions of suit land. The possession of plaintiffs over 0-15-0 bighas in the suit land has been specifically denied. As per defendants, they had constructed their house after demolishing the old ancestral house even before filing the previous suit by the plaintiffs. 4.1 CMA No.205-VI/2020 has also been contested by defendants on the same grounds as taken in defense in written statement. 5. While deciding CMA No.205-VI/2020, learned trial court rejected the prayer of plaintiffs to restrain defendants from raising construction of second storey over already existing structure. The learned Trial Court, however, directed the parties to maintain status quo over the remaining vacant part of suit land till final disposal of the case. 6. The order dated 10.12.2020 was assailed by plaintiffs in appeal under order 43 Rule 1 (R) of the Code before learned District Judge, Mandi, which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15/2020. Learned District Judge, Mandi allowed the appeal of plaintiffs and order dated 10.12.2020 passed in CMA No.205-VI/2020 by learned Trial Court was set aside. This order of learned District Judge, Mandi is under challenge before this Court by way of instant petition. 7. Learned District Judge, Mandi allowed the appeal of plaintiffs and order dated 10.12.2020 passed in CMA No.205-VI/2020 by learned Trial Court was set aside. This order of learned District Judge, Mandi is under challenge before this Court by way of instant petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the copies of pleadings placed on record and also the orders passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned District Judge, Mandi. 8. Perusal of impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, reveals that the same has been passed merely on surmises. The facts of the case as well as the basic principles of law required for adjudicating upon the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code have been omitted from consideration. 9. As per admitted case of plaintiffs a portion of suit land measuring 10 feet X 40 feet was utilised by defendants during the pendency of previous suit by raising single storyed structure thereon. Thus, the possession of defendants on such piece of land was not disputed even by the plaintiffs, but learned District Judge, Mandi, has observed that there was no specific proof of the fact that defendants were having exclusive possession of portion of the suit land over which they were seeking to raise construction. According to learned District Judge, an error had thus been committed by learned trial court in allowing the defendants to raise constructions of the second storey of the house. This only evidences the slip shod manner in which the matter came to be decided by learned District Judge, Mandi. 10. The legal position, as far as the applicability of principles to be applied at the time of deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code, is well settled. For adjudication of this petition, it shall be apt and sufficient to have reference to a recent judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. Smt. Sheetal and others, (2021) 1 ShimLC 377 , wherein it has been held as under: "7. It is well settled that before grant of injunction and considering prayer for discretionary relief, court must be satisfied that the party praying for relief has a prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in its favour. It is well settled that before grant of injunction and considering prayer for discretionary relief, court must be satisfied that the party praying for relief has a prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in its favour. While granting injunction, if any, court is also required to ascertain whether refusal to grant injunction would cause irreparable loss to such party. Apart from aforesaid well established parameters/ ingredients, conduct of a party seeking injunction is also of utmost importance. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment rendered 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. Phrases, "prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss", have been beautifully interpreted/defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. The Puna Municpal Corpn., (1995) 2 JT 504 (S.C.) relying upon its earlier judgment in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 has held as under: "...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 fade right and infraction of the enjoyment of him property or the 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. 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 non-interference 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 to grant 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. The court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit." [8] Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court clearly suggests that existence of three basic ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury is mandatory for passing an order of injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 CPC. It is also well settled by now that aforesaid three ingredients are not only to exist but must coexist. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Ltd. vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ld. and others, (2012) 6 SCC 792 , wherein, it has been held as under: "29. It is also well settled by now that aforesaid three ingredients are not only to exist but must coexist. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Ltd. vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ld. and others, (2012) 6 SCC 792 , wherein, it has been held as under: "29. Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary injunction was not irreparable. 30. In Dalpat Kumar & Anr. v. Prahlad Singh & Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 719 this Court held: "Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference 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." 36. To quote the words of Alderson, B. in The Attorney-General vs. Hallett,1857 16 M&W 569: 153 ER 1316: "I take the meaning of irreparable injury to be that which, if not prevented by injunction, cannot be afterwards compensated by any decree which the Court can pronounce in the result of the cause." [9] Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar and another vs. Prahlad Singh and others, (1992) 1 SCC 719 , has categorically held that prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title, which requires to be established on evidence at the trial. Mere satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference 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. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference 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. Since purpose of temporary injunction is to maintain status quo, court, while granting such relief, should be satisfied that prima facie case has been made out and balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable loss and injury to him." 11. By applying above noted exposition of law, impugned order cannot be sustained. Learned District Judge, Mandi has erred in allowing the appeal without appreciating the material on record on the touch stone of well settled principles of law. 12. As a consequence of the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, order passed by learned trial court stood set aside. Meaning thereby the effect of order passed by learned trial court lost its efficacy and relevance. That being so, what was the fate of prayer made by plaintiff in their application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2? Does it mean that such prayer stood granted by necessary implication? In the facts of the case, such an inference will be too farfetched for the reasons that firstly the impugned order is bereft of any reasoning and secondly the issue raised by the parties required a definite answer after adjudication. The parties could not be left in limbo. 13. Now, coming to the order passed by learned trial Court, it cannot be said that learned trial court had not considered the factual position of the case by assessing the same against the above noted settled principles of law. The fact remains that on the date of filing of CMA No.205- VI/2020, undisputedly the defendants had already raised construction of a single storey structure and it was this structure which was sought to be got demolished by plaintiffs by a decree of mandatory injunction. The fact remains that on the date of filing of CMA No.205- VI/2020, undisputedly the defendants had already raised construction of a single storey structure and it was this structure which was sought to be got demolished by plaintiffs by a decree of mandatory injunction. Learned Trial Court had also taken into consideration thet fact that the rights of the parties were still to be finally adjudicated and in case the defendants succeeded in raising even the second storey that would also be subject to the final outcome of the suit and in case the suit for mandatory injunction was decreed the same would include the entire structure on the suit land raised by defendants. On such assessment the learned Trial Court evaluated comparative balance of convenience and irreparable loss qua the parties and thereafter came to the conclusion as recorded in the order. 14. The findings recorded by learned trial Court appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned trial Court while dealing with the prayer of the plaintiffs in CMA No.205-VI/2020 had considered all the pros and cons of the case in the given set of facts on the risk and responsibility of the defendants and in case they remain unsuccessful in the case, they cannot take any advantage of the same. 15. The order passed by learned Trial Court is in two parts. In one part, the prayer of plaintiffs in the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code has been impliedly rejected by allowing defendants to raise construction of second storey on the already existing first storey, and in second part, an overreaching order directing the parties to maintain status quo over the remaining vacant land, which was not even the subject matter of CMA No.205-VI/2020, has been passed. 16. The petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 30.12.2020 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2020 is set aside and the order passed by learned trial Court is affirmed only to the extent it impliedly rejected the prayer made by plaintiffs in CMA No.205-VI/2020. Remaining part of the order passed by learned Trial Court cannot be legally sustained, being beyond the scope of issue involved in CMA 205-VI/2020, hence is set aside. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs. Remaining part of the order passed by learned Trial Court cannot be legally sustained, being beyond the scope of issue involved in CMA 205-VI/2020, hence is set aside. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 17. It is made clear that expression of opinion, if any, rendered hereinabove shall only be construed for the disposal of this petition and shall in no manner have bearing on the merits of the suit pending trial before learned trial Court.