JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, is defendant No.2 in O.S. No.8 of 2015 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur. He filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.297 of 2016 in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 CPC, claiming that he was in possession of the suit land and seeking a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs and their men from entering into the suit land during the pendency of the suit. By order dated 26.08.2016, the Trial Court allowed his petition and directed that status quo as regards possession of the suit land by defendant No.2 shall be maintained and restrained the plaintiffs and their men from entering into the suit land till the disposal of the suit or until further orders, whichever was earlier. 2. Assailing the said order, the plaintiffs in the suit filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur. This appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, vide order dated 05.05.2017, setting aside the status quo order passed by the Trial Court in favour of defendant No.2. 3. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.2 is before this Court by way of this revision. By order dated 30.06.2017, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur. Thereafter, by order dated 06.9.2017, this Court directed that the interim order granted earlier shall continue until further orders. 4. Heard Mr. Th. Henba, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. S.Sachindra Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 5. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 6. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.8 of 2015 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit land or, in the alternative, for eviction of defendant No.3, who was stated to have been engaged by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to take possession of the suit land, and for delivery of possession of the suit land to them, in case defendant No.3 was found to be in possession thereof. The suit land, in two schedules, consisted of paddy fields in patta No.1101 (Old)/253(New) BT of Dag No.1284, CS Dag No.1293 of Village No.51-Ngangkhalawai. 7. 1 and 2 to take possession of the suit land, and for delivery of possession of the suit land to them, in case defendant No.3 was found to be in possession thereof. The suit land, in two schedules, consisted of paddy fields in patta No.1101 (Old)/253(New) BT of Dag No.1284, CS Dag No.1293 of Village No.51-Ngangkhalawai. 7. It is clear from the suit prayer itself that the plaintiffs were not certain as to their being in possession of the suit land. Perhaps this ambiguity on their part stemmed from the earlier litigation involving their predecessor-in-title, Khundrakpam Juge Singh. O.S. No.7 of 2010 was filed by him against defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the present suit, and others, seeking declaration of his title as regards the suit schedule properties therein and for other reliefs. The suit schedule properties were comprised in four schedules and included the paddy fields which form the suit land in the present suit. This aspect is not in dispute. 8. By order dated 31.07.2013, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur, dismissed O.S. No.7 of 2010 holding that Khundrakpam Juge Singh had failed to prove and establish that he was in possession of the suit schedule properties. Civil Appeal No.2 of 2014 filed by Khundrakpam Juge Singh before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, was dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 09.07.2014, affirming this finding of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court specifically held that preponderance of probability was in favour of the defendants and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit lands at the time of institution of that suit. 9. Significantly, the plaintiffs in O.S. No.8 of 2015 are none other than the widow and children of Khundrakpam Juge Singh, Therefore, they claim through him and would be bound by the findings in the earlier round of litigation. This was the aspect that weighed with the Trial Court, as is clear from a perusal of the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur. Therefore, the Trial Court opined that the basic legal requirements for grant of a temporary injunction, viz., existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable loss/injury were established by defendant No.2. Therefore, the Trial Court opined that the basic legal requirements for grant of a temporary injunction, viz., existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable loss/injury were established by defendant No.2. The Trial Court accordingly directed that status quo as regards his possession over the suit land be maintained and restrained the plaintiffs from interfering therewith. 10. In appeal, the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, failed to consider the import of the earlier litigation and the findings rendered therein, which had attained finality. Ignoring those weighty findings, the Appellate Court baldly opined that it was not appropriate for the Trial Court to grant an order of status quo in favour of defendant No.2. The Appellate Court held that defendant No.2 had to show that he was threatened with dispossession from the suit land by the plaintiffs before he could seek such relief and as he had not established that the balance of convenience was in his favour or that he would suffer irreparable injury by any illegal act of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court ought not to have granted an order in his favour. Stating so, the Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court's status quo order and allowed the appeal. 11. In this regard, the Appellate Court surprisingly overlooked the averments in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.297 of 2016. In paragraph No.3 thereof, defendant No.2 specifically averred that when he along with his relation went to the suit land on 15.06.2016 with a tractor for tilling operations, the plaintiffs and some other persons came there and threatened them to leave the suit land or face dire consequences. Pertinent to note, though written objections were filed by the plaintiffs in the Judicial Miscellaneous Case, they did not deny the averment of defendant No.2 as to what had happened on 15,06.2016. In the light of the clear unrebutted allegation of defendant No.2, the Appellate Court was incorrect in opining that he had not shown that there was a threat of irreparable injury and damage from the plaintiffs. 12. It is a settled proposition of law that even a defendant in a suit can apply for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC. 12. It is a settled proposition of law that even a defendant in a suit can apply for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC. In Suganda Bai v. Sulu Bai and others, (AIR 1975 Karnataka 137, the Karnataka High Court observed that a defendant can seek a temporary injunction against the plaintiff, even without filing a counter claim, when and where the relief claimed arises out of the plaintiff's cause of action or is incidental to it. In the present case, the ambiguity in the suit prayer as to the plaintiffs' claim of possession over the suit land coupled with the unrebutted allegation of defendant No.2 of specific overt acts on the part of the plaintiffs posing a threat of damage and injury were sufficient to give rise to a claim by defendant no.2 for a temporary injunction. 13. Mr. S.Sachindra Singh, learned counsel, would contend that if there was any doubt as to the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land, the Trial Court ought to have merely directed status quo to be maintained as regards possession instead of granting a temporary injunction in favour of defendant No.2. However, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Th.Henba, learned counsel, such an order of status quo without indicating in clear terms as to who is in possession would only lead to further complications, if not a law and order situation. In D. Albert v. Lalitha and others (AIR 1989 Madras 73), the Madras High Court observed that while ordering status quo, the Court is bound to decide, prima facie, on the material available, whether the plaintiff is in possession or the defendant is in possession and leaving the matter in doubt and ambiguity by passing an order of status quo would result in more dangerous consequences than even deciding wrongly but clearly that one of the parties is in possession. 14. 14. Given the totality of the circumstances and more particularly, the vague suit prayer which manifested in no uncertain terms that the plaintiffs were not even sure as to whether they were in possession, and given the findings in the earlier round of litigation suffered by Khundrakpam Juge Singh, the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title, defendant No.2 clearly made out a prima facie case; the balance of convenience tilted in his favour as there was a possibility of damage to the suit land if the plaintiffs continued with their illegal acts of trying to interfere with his possession and his agricultural operations; and any such action on their part would cause him irreparable injury. The Trial Court was therefore perfectly justified in granting him interim protection pending disposal of the suit. The Appellate Court failed to consider the relevant issues in the proper perspective and erred in setting aside the status quo order passed by the Trial Court. 15. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 and confirming the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur, in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.297 of 2016 (Ref: O.S. No.8 of 2015). In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.