ORDER : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 26.7.2019 passed by learned District Judge, Una, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.27 of 2019, arising out of order dated 01.10.2018, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, in CMA No. 247/18/16. 2. Petitioners herein are defendants/non-applicants and respondent herein is plaintiff/applicant before the learned Trial Court. The parties hereinafter shall be referred by the status, they hold before the learned Trial Court. 3. Plaintiff/applicant has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/non-applicants from changing the existing nature and character of land measuring 580-75 Sq. decimetres comprised of Khewat No.93, Khatauni No. 278, Khasra Nos. 3340/2189, 3341/2189 and 3343/2189, situate at Up Mohal Gaula (Una), Tehsil and District Una, HP, (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land), by raising any sort of construction or otherwise taking exclusive possession by ousting the plaintiff/applicant forcibly and also cutting and removing of trees till the regular and final partition. In alternative, a prayer has been made for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendants/respondents to remove the “malba” of any super structure raised exclusively and forcibly during the pendency of the suit. 4. According to plaintiff/applicant, the suit land is jointly owned by plaintiff with defendants No.1 and 2 and other co-owners. The partition of the suit land has not been effected by metes and bounds. He filed the suit on being threatened by defendants/non-applicants to raise construction and to take exclusive possession of suit land by ousting the plaintiff forcibly. 5. Defendants have not denied the status of the suit land to be joint. Their case is that though the suit land is recorded as joint in the revenue records but the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 have separate portions of the suit land in their respective possession. They have made counter allegations that plaintiff under the garb of filing the suit, intends to encroach upon the share of the suit land. His earlier attempt in this regard was thwarted in April, 2016 with the intervention of police. 6. They have made counter allegations that plaintiff under the garb of filing the suit, intends to encroach upon the share of the suit land. His earlier attempt in this regard was thwarted in April, 2016 with the intervention of police. 6. Plaintiff also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with the suit with the following prayer:- It is, therefore, prayed that the temporary injunction restraining the respondents from changing the existing nature and character by raising any sort of construction or otherwise, taking exclusive possession by ousting the applicant forcibly, cutting and removing the trees from land measuring 580-75 Square decimeters comprised of Khewat No. 93, Khatauni No.278, bearing Khasra No.3340/2189, 3341/2189, 3343/2198 as entered in Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 situated in Up Mohal Galua (Una) Tehsil and District Una, H.P. till regular and final partition during the pendency of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. 7. Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties in the above noted application directed them to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land till the final disposal of the suit or legal partition thereof. It was clarified that the order would not come in the way of to their already raised structures but will apply to the vacant portion. 8. Aggrieved against order dated 01.10.2018, passed by learned Trial Court, petitioner filed an appeal under order 43 Rule 1 ( r) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned District Judge Una which also came to be dismissed vide order impugned in the present petition. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records made available on the file of the case. 10. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records made available on the file of the case. 10. Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code Civil Procedure read as under: - Case in which temporary injunction may be granted-[***] Where in any Suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,] the court may by Order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders 11. The purpose of above noted provision of procedural law is to preserve the property in dispute in a suit, which is endanger of being wasted, damaged or alienated or the plaintiff feels threatened of his illegal dispossession or any other injury from defendant in relation to the property in dispute. 12. To succeed in application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicant has to show existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and avoidance of multiplicity of litigation. 13. In case, applicant succeeds to satisfy the Court about existence of above noted factors, the order to preserve property involved in the suit is bound to follow unless specially excepted by any interdiction of law. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the status of the suit property is joint and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bound in accordance with law. 14. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the status of the suit property is joint and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bound in accordance with law. 14. It is well settled that in a joint property all the co-owners hold similar rights, but none can be allowed to make use of the property in a manner which is prejudicial to the rights of other co-owners. 15. It is revealed from the pleadings of the parties that both the parties have levelled allegations and counter allegations of use of suit property in a manner prejudicial to each other. It is not a case where defendants/respondents have specially pleaded or undertaken of having no intent to change the nature of the suit land or to alter its position so as to prejudice the plaintiff. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiff/applicant was able to establish existence of prima facie case in his favour. In case of non-grant of interim injunction in his favour and in the event of defendants changing the nature of the suit land, undoubtedly, rights of plaintiff shall be prejudiced, hence, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is also in favour of the plaintiff. To avoid multiplicity of litigation also an interim order was required to be passed in favour of plaintiff/applicant in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Judging the impugned order on the touch stone of well settled legal principles, it cannot be said the impugned order suffers from illegality or material irregularity. No jurisdictional error can be found in the impugned order so as to warrant inference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order only affirmed the order dated 26.07.2019, passed by learned Trial Court which is most equitable order. It is not understandable as to how defendants have taken exception to such orders. Defendants have failed to show any serious prejudice being caused to them by order impugned in this Case. 18. The impugned order was passed on 26.07.2019 and the present petition has been filed in this Court on 02.07.2021, after about two years. No explanation has been set out by petitioner for filing the petition at a belated stage. Defendants have failed to show any serious prejudice being caused to them by order impugned in this Case. 18. The impugned order was passed on 26.07.2019 and the present petition has been filed in this Court on 02.07.2021, after about two years. No explanation has been set out by petitioner for filing the petition at a belated stage. It is trite that even where no limitation is provided to institute judicial proceeding, the same has to be filed within reasonable period unless for some special reasons a case is made out. This petition definitely cannot be said to be bona fide, rather an abuse of process of law. 19. In view of above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 20. Any opinion impressed hereinabove shall have no bearing on the facts of the case and the learned trial Court shall decide the main suit on its own merits. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court. Suit was instituted in the year 2016, therefore, learned Trial Court is expected to decide the same expeditiously.