JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 08.08.2022, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in C.M.A. No. 09-D/XIV/2022, whereby order dated 21.04.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala in C.M.A. No. 363 of 2021, has been modified by partly accepting the appeal of the respondents herein. 2. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold before learned Trial Court. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that land measuring 0-34- 96 hectares comprised in old Khata No. 9, Khatauni No. 15, Khasra No. 268, vide jamabandi for the year 1971-72 was recorded in ownership of the plaintiff alongwith other co-owners and in possession of predecessor-in-interest of defendants namely Sh. Heeru as non-occupancy tenant. On coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, plaintiff applied for resumption of land, out of old Khasra No. 268. The Land Reforms Officer allowed his resumption application to the extent of 0-04-34 hectares and such land is denoted by Khasra No. 432/268. Proprietary rights in rest of the land comprised in old Khasra No. 268 vested in the defendants and the same was described by Khasra Nos. 511/434/268 and 509/433/268. Mutations were accordingly attested and revenue records were updated. 4. Aggrieved against the resumption order passed by Land Reforms Officer, plaintiff had filed an appeal before District Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, which was accepted and the matter was remanded back to Land Reforms Officer with the direction to decide afresh, vide order dated 24.11.2003. Defendants have assailed aforesaid order passed by District Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, before Divisional Commissioner, Kangra and matter is stated to be still pending before said authority. 5. Plaintiff claimed injunction against defendants on the ground that the resumption proceedings had not attained finality and therefore, defendants had no right to use any portion of entire suit land. Defendants have assailed aforesaid order passed by District Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, before Divisional Commissioner, Kangra and matter is stated to be still pending before said authority. 5. Plaintiff claimed injunction against defendants on the ground that the resumption proceedings had not attained finality and therefore, defendants had no right to use any portion of entire suit land. Alongwith the plaint, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking relief in following terms:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents/defendants may pleased be restrained from changing the nature of the suit land, by raising any construction interfering in any manner whatsoever, cutting and removing the trees from the suit land comprised in Khata No. 12, Khatauni No. 36, Min.37 and 38, Khasra Nos. 432/268, 511/434/268 and 509/433/268 Kita 3 area measuring 0-31-36 hect. situated at Mohal Jhikali Oder Mauza Oder Tehsil Dharamshala District Kangra, H.P. vide Jamabandi 2018-19 till final disposal main suit by allowing the instant application in the interest of justice.” 6. Learned Trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff for interim injunction and defendants were restrained from raising any construction on entire land comprised in new Khata No.12 and old Khata No. 9, Khasra No. 268 measuring 0-34-96 hectares in Mohal-Jhikali Oder, Mauja-Oder, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. Defendants filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, against order passed by learned Trial Court. Learned District Judge, vide impugned order partly allowed the appeal and vacated the injunction granted by learned Trial Court in so far as it pertains to land comprised in Khasra Nos. 509/433/268. Plaintiff has assailed the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala by way of instant petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. Admittedly, plaintiff has no claim on entire suit land. By way of resumption proceedings, he is claiming only a share therein. Land Reforms Officer had already allowed his resumption application by allotting him a share in the suit land. His dissatisfaction with the order of Land Reforms Officer was only to the extent of the quantum of share. 9. Perusal of contents of plaint also does not reveal that plaintiff has staked claim on entire suit land. Land Reforms Officer had already allowed his resumption application by allotting him a share in the suit land. His dissatisfaction with the order of Land Reforms Officer was only to the extent of the quantum of share. 9. Perusal of contents of plaint also does not reveal that plaintiff has staked claim on entire suit land. Plaintiff has approached learned Trial Court with vague averments that the defendants had threatened to cut trees and raise construction on the suit land. Plaintiff has not averred that entire suit land was sought to be utilized by the defendants. The entire suit land consists of huge area of 0-34-96 hectares and it cannot be presumed that defendants would be raising construction on the entire area. 10. Preventive relief of injunction is a discretionary relief. In order to succeed in getting a decree of perpetual injunction, plaintiff has to establish his right. It is also trite law that the scope of interim injunction cannot be wider than the perpetual injunction to which plaintiff may be held entitled. Further, plaintiff has also to succeed in proving existence of an obligation in his favour and its beach by the defendants. 11. As noticed above, plaintiff can resume the part of the suit land. He has not been able to make out a case that the defendants are under obligation to preserve the entire suit land in its present state. Undisputedly, defendants have a substantial share in the suit land and the same also finds reflection in revenue record. For restraining the defendants from raising any construction over even on a part of suit land, plaintiff had to make out special case, in accordance with law. 12. In the given facts of the case, plaintiff cannot be said to have a prima facie case for injuncting the defendants from utilizing any part of the suit land. Merely because the resumption proceedings are pending before Revenue Court, the valuable rights of defendants over the suit land cannot be taken away. The order under challenge before Divisional Commissioner, Dharamshala, was passed in the year 2003 and after lapse of about 19 years, the proceedings have not been finally decided. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss also is in favour of the defendants in comparison to the plaintiff. 13. Defendants are satisfied with the impugned order, whereby they have been allowed to raise construction on Khasra Nos. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss also is in favour of the defendants in comparison to the plaintiff. 13. Defendants are satisfied with the impugned order, whereby they have been allowed to raise construction on Khasra Nos. 509/433/268, keeping in view the fact that defendant Ranjit Singh was intending to raise construction of a house by taking benefit under “Mukhyamantri Awas Yojna”, for which he has been sanctioned Rs. 1,50,000/-by the Competent Authority. Plaintiff has taken exception even to partial modification of order passed by learned District judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. 14. Keeping in view that the order of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Dharamshala. 15. In result, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any, also stands disposed of.