JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4. It is submitted at the bar that the respondent No. 4 is otherwise only a proforma respondent. 2. By filing this application under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) and Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005, the appellant has impugned the Order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge – IV, Aizawl in Civil Misc. Application No. 262/2021 arising out of Civil Suit No. 37/2021, by which a temporary injunction was granted to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 (plaintiffs) and against the appellant (opposite party No. 1) by restraining her from disbursing/withdrawing any amount of money through any mode from her Savings Bank Account No. 97010483531 at Mizoram Rural Bank, Chaltlang Branch, Aizawl and also in respect of Savings Bank Account No. 97007908888 at Mizoram Rural Bank, Sairang Branch, belonging to the proforma respondent No. 4/defendant No. 2. It is submitted at the bar that the temporary injunction in respect of the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 2 had later been modified by the court below and he is now allowed to operate his bank account. 3. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the instant appeal and as projected by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is that they along with 3 (three) other persons, entered into an agreement with the appellant/defendant No. 1 for sharing equally the amount of compensation to be received towards certain plot of land belonging to the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 2 and one Smt. Lalthlamuani and the same was executed on 09.06.2016, and witnessed by the President, Village Council of Sihhmui, Sairang, Aizawl District. However, when the compensation amount was received for the property in question, the appellant/defendant No. 1 failed to abide by the agreement dated 09.06.2016 and instead, she distributed the compensation amount as per her own wishes and in violation of the agreement. Aggrieved, the respondent Nos. However, when the compensation amount was received for the property in question, the appellant/defendant No. 1 failed to abide by the agreement dated 09.06.2016 and instead, she distributed the compensation amount as per her own wishes and in violation of the agreement. Aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 filed Civil Suit No. 37/2021 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl, praying for a decree for declaring the agreement dated 09.06.2015 (2016) as valid and binding upon the parties and for a direction to the appellant/defendant No. 1 and the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 for immediate payment of money to them as per the said agreement. 4. Along with the Civil Suit, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 filed Civil Misc. Application No. 262/2021 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for grant of permanent and temporary injunction against the defendants (the appellant and the respondent No. 4), to restrain them from disbursing/withdrawing the amount of money from their respective savings bank account in Mizoram Rural Bank, Chaltlang Branch and Sairang Branch respectively. Although the appellant as defendant No. 1 filed her written objection, the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 08.12.2021 granted temporary injunction to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the manner as already indicated herein above. Aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 as appellant is before this Court. 5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that an injunction, either temporary or permanent under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC can be granted subject to the court being satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out by the applicant and that there is balance of convenience in favor of the applicant. Further, the court has to be also satisfied that irreparable injury would be caused to the applicant which cannot be compensated by way of damages if an injunction is not granted. He submits that in the instant case, the prima facie satisfaction of the Court below on the said pre-requisites is not discernible. A bare perusal of the impugned order only shows that in the opinion of the Court, irreparable loss would be caused to the applicants unless a temporary injunction is granted. The same by no means according to Mr. A.R. Malhotra satisfy the underlying principles for granting a temporary or permanent injunction under the CPC. A bare perusal of the impugned order only shows that in the opinion of the Court, irreparable loss would be caused to the applicants unless a temporary injunction is granted. The same by no means according to Mr. A.R. Malhotra satisfy the underlying principles for granting a temporary or permanent injunction under the CPC. The therefore submits that the Court could not have passed the impugned order and that the interference of this Hon’ble Court is called for. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following decisions:- (1) Gadadhar Barman Vs. Ranendra Mohan Paul 1998 (1) GLT 137. (2) Unnayan Builders And Real Estate Developers Vs. Intaga li (MD.) 2018 (3) GLT 255. (3) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Vs. KS Infraspace LLP Limited & Another (2020) 5 SCC 410 6. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3/plaintiffs, Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel submits that the rival parties had entered into an agreement on 09.06.2016 for equally sharing the compensation amount to be received from the property belonging to the respondent No. 4 and one Smt. Lalthlamuani. In furtherance of the said agreement, an amount of roughly Rs. 14 crores was received as compensation and instead of distributing the amount of money received in equal shares as per the agreement, the appellant/defendant No. 1 only gave a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each to the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 1 and to 2 (two) other persons. She also gave a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs each to the plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3/respondent Nos. 2 & 3. After giving an amount of Rs. 5 crores to the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 2, she kept the remaining amount for herself. 7. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3/plaintiffs came to know about the fact that the appellant/defendant No. 1 had received the amount of compensation sometime in the year 2019 and accordingly, they approached her on several occasions for their share of the amount of compensation in terms of the agreement dated 09.12.2016. However, the appellant/defendant No. 1 apart from giving the money to the plaintiffs as stated earlier had kept a major share of the compensation for herself. As a result, the plaintiffs having no option filed the Civil Suit before the court below. 8. However, the appellant/defendant No. 1 apart from giving the money to the plaintiffs as stated earlier had kept a major share of the compensation for herself. As a result, the plaintiffs having no option filed the Civil Suit before the court below. 8. The learned counsel referring to the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant No. 1, more particularly at paragraph No. 9 submits that it can be clearly seen that the appellant/defendant No. 1 has not denied the fact of there being an agreement made by the parties on 09.12.2016 and therefore, pending final adjudication of the Civil Suit, the learned Court below had rightly passed the impugned order dated 08.12.2021. He submits that there is no delay on the part of the plaintiffs in approaching the Court inasmuch as, some amount of money was paid by the defendant No. 1 to them and that they were all along expecting that she would pay them their respective shares. He further submits that assuming but not admitting the fact that the learned Court below was not justified in granting the temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC but at the same time, it is only a fit case for granting of the temporary injunction by invoking Section 151 CPC. He therefore submits that the learned Court below is fully justified in passing the impugned order and in protecting the interest of the plaintiffs. 9. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant in a quick response to the submission of Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, submits that the plaintiffs themselves had violated the alleged agreement. He submits that as per the agreement, 3 (three) persons were specifically detailed to approach the Revenue Department for preparing the land documents but the plaintiffs did not keep the agreement and interfered with the processing of the relevant files and therefore, the plaintiffs now cannot seek enforcement of the agreement which they themselves had violated. He submits that Section 151 cannot be invoked when there are specific provisions for granting of temporary or permanent injunction. In this connection, he relies upon the case of Unnayan Builders And Real Estate Developers (supra). 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and perusal the materials available on record. 11. He submits that Section 151 cannot be invoked when there are specific provisions for granting of temporary or permanent injunction. In this connection, he relies upon the case of Unnayan Builders And Real Estate Developers (supra). 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and perusal the materials available on record. 11. The issue raised by the appellant is that the Court below without properly considering the matter had granted injunction in favour of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3. In order to appreciate the controversy, Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC may be abstracted as below:- “1. Cases 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. 2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.---(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise as the Court thinks fit. 12. To understand the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC better, we may fall back to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Vs. KS Infraspace LLP Limited (supra), wherein it was held that in a matter concerning grant of injunction, apart from the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, the conduct of the party seeking the equitable relief of injunction is also very essential to be considered. The Apex Court further went on to refer the case of Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 on the subject and the same may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “5. ...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 third condition also is that “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. Thus, the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit.” 13. 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. Thus, the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit.” 13. Besides the above, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Unnayan Builders And Real Estate Developers (supra) in the given facts of that case held that when the chance of suffering irreparable loss and injury which could not be compensated or computed in terms of money was not in existence, the rejection of the Court concerned to the prayer for ad-interim was justified. Also this Court in Gadadhar Barman (supra) held that a temporary injunction cannot be granted in the absence of a prayer for permanent injunction. 14. It is noticed that the learned Court below failed to take into consideration the above aspects before passing the impugned order. It is further seen that parties have exchanged pleadings before the Trial Court and the dispute raised or the rival claims will have to be considered in the light of the law laid down in this regard. The Lower Court Records are not before this Court and therefore, under the circumstance, I find it to be a fit case for remanding the case back to the learned Trial Court for re-consideration on the basis of the observations made herein above. 15. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for reconsideration and the impugned Order dated 08.12.2021 passed in CMA No. 262/2021 arising out of Civil Suit No. 37/2021 is hereby set aside. It is further directed that the learned Trial Court shall re-consider the matter preferably within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of appearance of the parties by giving due opportunities to them and till such time a fresh decision is taken, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. 16. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 02.03.2022 whereafter, the Court shall proceed in accordance with law and as directed herein above. 17. With the above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of.