ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 20.01.2020 in C.M.A. No. 4 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Asifabad, whereunder the order dated 07.05.2019 in I.A. No. 43 of 2019 in O.S. No. 9 of 2019 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur, was set aside. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. Perused the material available on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in O.S. No. 9 of 2019 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur. 3. The plaintiff has filed the original suit in O.S. No. 9 of 2019 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit schedule property i.e. Quarter No. A-14, New Colony, Kagaznagar, Kumaram Beem Asifabad District. Along with the original suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 43 of 2019 under Order-39, Rule 1(C) of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff over the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit. 4......... (a) The plaintiff-Sirpur Paper Mills Workers’ Union affiliated to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh has filed the original suit against the defendant-Sirpur Paper Mills Limited, Sirpur at Kagaznagar, represented by its General Manager. The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order-39, Rule-1 of CPC are that the plaintiff is a registered Union of the Sirpur Paper Mills, as per the Trade Unions Act, 1926, affiliated to Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh. It is represented by its President, Sri. K. Bhattacharya. The defendant is a Company represented by its General Manager. In the year 1986, the plaintiff-union won in the trade union elections conducted by State Labour Department. As the management and trade union have to work for advancement and upliftment of the workmen of the defendant company to maintain cordiality, the defendant has provided office building and other facilities allotting Quarter No. A-14 (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule quarter’) in the year 1986 and ever since the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. (b) In September 2014 operations of defendant’s factory were closed for about four years. Later, as per the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (for short ‘NCLT’) it was taken over by a new management under new promoters belonging to J.K. Paper Limited around July 2018. Neither the erstwhile management nor the new promoters of the defendant company raised any objection during the said period to the plaintiff’s union continuing their possession in respect of suit schedule quarter. (c) All of a sudden on 10.01.2019, two officers of the defendant company came to the suit schedule quarter, broke open the locks of the main gate and front room and trespassed into three residential rooms, store room and one bathroom, tried to take away the furniture and other material. On that the plaintiff has filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Kagaznagar Town Police Station on 11.01.2019, thereafter, gave a protest letter to the management of defendant on 12.01.2019. The management has persuaded the request and vacated the rooms, but later on 18.01.2019 served a notice on the plaintiff to vacate the suit quarter to which a suitable reply dated 28.01.2019 was issued. Again on 25.01.2019 another attempt was made to dispossess the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 31.01.2019 the defendant filed a caveat petition. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has approached the local MLA, gave a representation to persuade the management to refrain from use of force. Under these circumstances, having no other alternative remedy, the plaintiff-union has filed the original suit and I.A. No. 43 of 2019 for temporary injunction. 5......... (a) The management of defendant company has filed a detailed counter denying the averments in the petition stating that the defendant is a public limited company and it does not know since how long the plaintiff union is operating. There is no such practice in any industry to provide office building and other facilities to recognized unions; the defendant has no knowledge about the affairs between the then management and the plaintiff’s union; the defendant never recognized the possession of the plaintiff-union in respect of the suit schedule property; it was never in possession of the plaintiff-union at any point of time. In fact the entire property came into possession of defendant company, by virtue of proceedings before the NCLT and by virtue of proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Endorsement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’). (b) From 01.08.2018 onwards the J.K. Paper Limited has taken over the possession. The defendant is the real owner and possessor of the suit schedule quarter, these employees who work in the State Government are having every right to visit their premises for maintenance and other reasons; it is denied that Sri. Ramakrishna and Sri. Surendra Prasad along with the security guards trespassed into the suit quarter on 10.01.2019. As the plaintiff-union was never in possession of suit schedule quarter at any point of time, the question of interference etc., does not arise. (c) The defendant has not received any letter dated 12.09.2019 from the plaintiff and it is not aware as to the plaintiff-union approaching the local police on 11.01.2019. However, the defendant company has got issued a notice on 18.01.2019 asking the plaintiff-union to hand over the vacant possession of one room of suit schedule quarter to which a vague reply was issued. In fact, as per the orders dated 19.07.2018 passed by NCLT, Hyderabad bench, the Sirpur Paper Mills was taken over the J.K. Paper Limited, after resolution of J.K. Paper Limited was approved by NCLT after J.K. Paper Limited declared as successful resolution applicant. (d) As per the resolution plan approved by NCLT, the company is entitled to all the rights on its properties movable and immovable. The notice was already displayed by the resolution professional on 31.07.2018, by the management on 25.12.2018 to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of quarter No. 14. The suit schedule quarter to an extent of one room and the remaining rooms were already in possession of defendant. In this context, on 18.01.2019 a notice was issued and caveat was also filed and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. During enquiry before the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff-union, Exs.P.1 to P.24 were marked, whereas on behalf of respondent/defendant, Ex.R.1 was marked. In this context, on 18.01.2019 a notice was issued and caveat was also filed and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. During enquiry before the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff-union, Exs.P.1 to P.24 were marked, whereas on behalf of respondent/defendant, Ex.R.1 was marked. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur after appreciating all the facts and applying the settled principles of law allowed the application, granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-union restraining the defendant company and its men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff-union over the petition schedule quarter, pending disposal of the suit. 7. The orders in I.A. No. 43 of 2019 dated 07.05.2019 were carried in appeal before the learned III Additional District Judge, Asifabad, vide C.M.A. No. 4 of 2019 whereunder the learned III Additional District Judge set aside the orders impugned with an observation that, in August 2014 itself Sirpur Paper Mills was closed and as per the orders of NCLT, Hyderabad bench, it was taken over by J.K. Paper Limited from July 2018 onwards and that the plaintiff has failed to establish whether the management has allotted quarter No. A-14 after taking over the management in July 2018. Hence, the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur in I.A. No. 43 of 2019 was set aside. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff-union on the following grounds: (a) that the lower Court has erred in arriving at a conclusion that Sirpur Paper Mills was closed under SARFAESI Act 2002, later the management was taken over by J.K. Paper Limited from July, 2018. (b) that the Court below has also failed to arrive at a proper conclusion as to how the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule quarter, caveat petition was marked as Ex.P.17, notice and reply notice are marked as Exs.P.14 and P.21 respectively, they are quite contradictory with each other. (c) In Ex.P.21, the defendant himself described the plaintiff-union has possessor (unauthorized occupation) of quarter No. 14, the learned III Additional District Judge failed to appreciate all these facts. 9. This application in I.A. No. 43 of 2019 is filed under Order-39, Rule-1 (C) of CPC for temporary injunction. (c) In Ex.P.21, the defendant himself described the plaintiff-union has possessor (unauthorized occupation) of quarter No. 14, the learned III Additional District Judge failed to appreciate all these facts. 9. This application in I.A. No. 43 of 2019 is filed under Order-39, Rule-1 (C) of CPC for temporary injunction. Order-39 of CPC provides that in any suit if it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise that the defendant threatens the plaintiff with respect to the property in the suit, the Court may by order grant temporary injunction, restraining the defendant until the disposal of the suit, as the Court thinks fit. The fundamental principle for grant of temporary injunction is that no injunction would be granted unless a prima-facie case is made out from the plaint, the documents filed along with it and the affidavit filed by the party. The second principle is that unless the injunction prayed for is not granted the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and injury before the suit is finally decided. 10. The object of granting temporary injunction is to preserve the matter in status quo till the case is finally decided. The law is also well-settled that the grant of interim injunction is a discretionary remedy and in exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing such relief, the Court will look into the following: (i) whether the person seeking a temporary injunction has made out a prima-facie case. This is sine qua non. (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e. whether it would cause much inconvenience to him if injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which either side would be put if injunction is granted. (iii) whether such person seeking a temporary injunction would suffer irreparable loss and injury. However, it is not necessary that all the three conditions must be satisfied. That the first condition is sine qua non. At least two conditions must be satisfied by the plaintiff conjunctively and mere proof of one of three conditions does not entitle a person to obtain temporary injunction. 11. The above being the legal position, let us examine pleadings, averments in the affidavit and supporting documents filed along with the plaint and the written statement. As discussed above, along with this application, the plaintiff has filed Exs.P.1 to P.24, whereas respondent has filed Ex.R.1. 11. The above being the legal position, let us examine pleadings, averments in the affidavit and supporting documents filed along with the plaint and the written statement. As discussed above, along with this application, the plaintiff has filed Exs.P.1 to P.24, whereas respondent has filed Ex.R.1. Ex.P.1 is the letter dated 05.08.1993 from the General Secretary of plaintiff-union to the defendant company. This document is not seriously disputed by the present management, which has taken over the management somewhere in July 2018, pursuant to the resolution plan approved by NCLT after J.K. Paper Limited was declared as successful resolution applicant. 12. Exs.P.2 to P.11 are only filed to show that the suit schedule quarter No. A-14 was allotted to the plaintiff-union and gas connection was also issued, telephone bill was also sent in favour of the plaintiff-union with the said address and that there was correspondence between the plaintiff and the other officials from the said address. Though the defendant has clearly stated that it is not aware of the events that took place prior to July 2018, the fact remains that quarter No. A-14 appears to have been allotted to the plaintiff-union and it was in their possession. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff-union is nothing to do with the resolution plan approved by the NCLT as per the orders dated 19.07.2018. 13. Ex.P.12 is the complaint letter lodged by the plaintiff before the police at Kagaznagar, whereas Ex.P.13 is a letter dated 12.01.2019 from the General Secretary of the plaintiff-union to the Director of defendant company. The defendant has denied stating that it has no knowledge about the plaintiff approaching the local police on 11.01.2019 and that no such letter dated 12.01.2019 was also submitted by any office bearer of the plaintiff. Ex.P.14 is dated 18.01.2019, it is issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule quarter. Admittedly, the defendant has issued the said notice, but it is the claim of the defendant that only one room in quarter No. A-14 was in possession of plaintiff, accordingly the defendant company has issued such notice. 14. In response to Ex.P.14, the plaintiff issued Ex.P.15 notice asserting that the plaintiff-union is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit quarter and it cannot be dispossessed by use of force. 14. In response to Ex.P.14, the plaintiff issued Ex.P.15 notice asserting that the plaintiff-union is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit quarter and it cannot be dispossessed by use of force. Exs.P.16 and P.18 are the documents relating to caveat petition No. 4 of 2019 field by the defendant. Exs.P.18, P.19 and P.20 are the letters from the General Secretary of the plaintiff and complaint of the plaintiff to the Superintendent of Police. These documents are not in serious dispute. Ex.P.21 is the notice dated 16.02.2019 issued by the defendant company along with its enclosures to the plaintiff to which a suitable reply was issued on the same day under Ex.P.22. Again Ex.P.23 is a complaint lodged to the Superintendent of Police, Asifabad, whereas Ex.P.24 is a letter addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant company. On behalf of the respondent, Ex.R.1-certified copy of FIR is filed. 15. Be it stated that among all the documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff, Ex.P.14 and P.21 are crucial documents, whereunder the defendant company has admitted the possession of plaintiff-union. Ex.P.14 is dated 18.01.2019 and Ex.P.21 is dated 06.02.2019. Ex.P.14 prima-facie discloses the possession of plaintiff who was in suit schedule quarter. Even a perusal of Ex.P.17 i.e. caveat petition No. 4 of 2019, it is averred that previously the suit quarter was allotted to the plaintiff-union. But, it is claimed that the possession was redelivered to the defendant. So, if Ex.P.17 is taken into consideration, it is the admission of defendant that suit quarter was in the possession of plaintiff-union on lease base. Though it is claimed that it was redelivered to the defendant, no such proof is filed on behalf of the defendant. Except Ex.R.1 certified copy of FIR, no other document is filed on behalf of the defendant. Ex.P.21 notice issued by the defendant company also discloses the possession of plaintiff-union over the suit schedule quarter on temporary basis. Though in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant, it is mentioned that the defendant does not have any knowledge about the affairs between the then management and the plaintiff-union, but if such is the case, how it is mentioned in Ex.P.17 about the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule quarter on lease basis and on temporary basis, as Exs.P.17 and P.21 are not explained anywhere in the affidavit of the defendant. 16. 16. Therefore, if Ex.P.17 caveat petition is taken into consideration, it is alleged that the suit quarter is redelivered, but the defendant company has failed to explain when exactly it was redelivered. If really redelivered before filing the suit itself, what made the defendant company to issue a notice Ex.P.21 requesting to hand over the movables placed in the schedule quarter. Thus, Ex.P.21 itself is sufficient to falsify the case of the defendant company that the schedule quarter was redelivered to it prior to filing of the suit. In such facts and circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff-union with Exs.P.14, P.17 and P.21 is able to establish that they are in possession of suit quarter and such possession of the plaintiff cannot be treated as unlawful. 17. The trial Court while relying on the principles laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rama Gowda (Dead) by LRs. vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) LRs. and Another, 2004 (1) SCC 769 held that the judicial precedent mentioned there is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and that the plaintiff-union is in settled possession of suit quarter. They cannot be evicted without due process of law. The various contentions raised by the defendant company can only be decided after full-fledged trial and the scope of the petition is very limited to the extent of granting temporary injunction. But the learned III Additional District Judge failed to appreciate the contents of Exs.P.14, P.17 and P.21, failed to analyse the facts correctly and arrived at an erroneous conclusion, only based on the orders of NCLT dated 19.07.2018 stating that the Sirpur Paper Mills Company was closed during the years 2014 to 2018, the possession of defendant cannot be expected and that there is no record to show that J.K. Paper Limited allotted the quarter to the plaintiff-union. 18. 18. Be it stated that when the earlier record prima-facie discloses that the previous management has leased the suit quarter to the plaintiff-union and Exs.P.1 to P.24 discloses the possession, more particularly, Ex.P.2 to P.14 clearly indicates the correspondence, telephone bills, domestic gas consumer card on the name of plaintiff-union with the suit schedule quarter and in Exs.P.14, P.17 and P.21 also, the defendant has admitted the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule quarter, it cannot be said that during the period when the defendant company was closed, the plaintiff has vacated the quarter No. A.14 and that it was not ready to hand over and it was not re-allotted by the defendant to the plaintiff. 19. To accept if that be so, there was no necessity for the defendant to call upon the plaintiff under which Exs.P.14 and P.21 to handover the vacant possession. It is in admission of the defendant in the affidavit that one room of suit schedule quarter is in the possession of plaintiff. But, the record, more particularly, in Exs.P.14, P.17 and P.21 shows the prima-facie exclusive possession of plaintiff-union over the suit schedule quarter. In such facts and circumstances of the case, for the reasons stated above, the order in C.M.A. No. 4 of 2019 is not sustainable and it is set aside confirming the order dated 07.05.2019 in I.A. No. 43 of 2019. 20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 20.01.2019 in C.M.A. No. 4 of 2019 is set aside, confirming the order of the trial Court in I.A. No. 43 of 2019 in O.S. No. 9 of 2019 dated 07.05.2019 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-union restraining the defendant company and their officials from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule quarter. 21. However, considering the nature of the dispute, change of management of defendant company, I deem it fit to direct the trial Court to expedite the disposal of the original suit and to resolve the issue finally, on the basis of evidence let in by both the parties in the original suit. Accordingly, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the original suit, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the original suit, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the defendant has not filed written statement in the original suit, they shall file written statement forthwith, so that the issues will be settled and the parties will adduce their evidence to conclude the trial, as directed above. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the original suit. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed.