JUDGMENT : (Devashis Baruah, J.) : Heard Mr. S Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. R. Ali appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code of 1908) challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1 Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Misc(J).Case No.1188/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.92/2023 whereby the learned Trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status-quo over the Schedule A and Schedule B lands until the Court conclusively decided the suit. 3. At the outset, this Court would like to opine that the impugned order by which both the parties were directed to maintain status-quo over the Schedule A and Schedule B lands is a completely vague direction which the learned Trial Court ought not to have passed in the said manner, taking into account that an order of injunction if passed, has to be specific. The status-quo order denotes various aspects as regards possession, nature and character of the suit property, title, interest created therein etc. Under such circumstances, the status-quo order when passed ought to have been specific in respect to what the learned Trial Court meant. 4. Be that as it may, this Court for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal would like to take note of the facts involved, which led to the filing of the instant appeal. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a suit seeking declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession, cancellation of the deeds and permanent injunction. The said suit filed was on 13.02.2023 and was registered as Title Suit No.92/2023. 5. In the said suit, it is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 19.85 lechas covered by Dag Nos.1784 and 2326 and included in KP Patta No. 303, Village Sahar Guwahati Part-I under Mouza Guwahati in the district of Kamrup(M). The said land has been specifically described in Schedule A to the plaint. It is relevant to mention that in addition to the Schedule-A, the plaintiff had referred to four other plots of lands described as Schedule B, C, D & E in the plaint. The said land has been specifically described in Schedule A to the plaint. It is relevant to mention that in addition to the Schedule-A, the plaintiff had referred to four other plots of lands described as Schedule B, C, D & E in the plaint. However, the subject matter of the suit was only in respect to Schedule-A land. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that there were five plots of land belonging to the parents of the plaintiff. The parents of the plaintiff were survived by the plaintiff and her brother. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Schedule A and B properties after an amicable partition with her brother fell into her share, whereas the properties described in Schedule C, D and E fell into the share of her brother. However, her brother purportedly vide two registered sale deeds bearing deed No.12594/22 and deed No.15295/22 both dated 02.06.2022 sold the Schedule A land to the defendant No.2.in an illegal manner, thereby depriving the plaintiff. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the brother of the plaintiff had expired prior to the filing of the suit. 7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff on 18.01.2023 came to learn about the purported Deeds of Sale and apprehending that the plaintiff would be dispossessed, had instituted the suit, seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule A land; for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff and her tenants over the Schedule A land; for declaration that the registered Deeds of Sale bearing Nos.12594/22 and 12595/22, both dated 02.06.2022 are void, illegal, and for other consequential reliefs. 8. Subsequent, thereto, the plaintiff claimed that she was dispossessed from the Schedule A land and accordingly, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint, thereby seeking recovery of possession of Schedule A land by ejecting the defendants their men, materials, constructions, etc., and in addition to that claiming compensation. 9. Post filing of the amended plaint, a fresh injunction application was filed which was registered as Misc.(J)Case No.1188/2023, seeking an injunction, thereby restraining the opposite parties therein, who are the appellants herein from changing the nature and character of the Schedule A property or any part thereof, or also not to create any third party right, interest over the Schedule A land in the interest of justice. Written objections were filed to the said application and pursuant thereto, the impugned order was passed. 10. Mr. S Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the plaintiff has no semblance of any right over the suit land i.e., the Schedule A land. Merely, the plaintiff asserts on the basis of an oral partition that she has right over the said land, whereas in all the Revenue records also, the name of the brother of the plaintiff appeared in all the Schedule A, B, C, D and E lands. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant herein after making due verification had purchased the Schedule A land vide two registered Deeds of Sale and was delivered possession. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the plaintiff could not show a single piece of document that there is any prima facie case involved in the suit. In addition to that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that granting an injunction has to be on the basis of the three golden principles. Merely because there is a prima facie case would not be enough for grant of an injunction unless and until the Court considers the balance of convenience as well as the irreparable loss, harm and injury. These aspects of the matter were not taken into consideration and even not discussed by the learned Trial Court. 11. Per Contra, Mr. R Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had been all along in possession of the Schedule A and B plot of land. In respect to the Schedule A plot of land, the plaintiff had tenants and these tenants were evicted by the appellants without following due process of law and that too, in violation of an injunction order. He further submitted that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the Schedule A land. However, post filing of the suit, the plaintiff had been dispossessed and it is under such circumstances, the plaintiff had to amend the suit seeking recovery of possession. He further submitted that the appellants herein, in view of their conduct are not entitled to challenge the order passed granting injunction which is an equitable jurisdiction exercised by the learned Trial Court. 12. He further submitted that the appellants herein, in view of their conduct are not entitled to challenge the order passed granting injunction which is an equitable jurisdiction exercised by the learned Trial Court. 12. This Court while taking up the instant appeal on the earlier occasion, put a specific question to Mr. S. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as to why the appellants want vacation of the order, taking into account, if the appellants are in possession, the status-quo order, so passed by the learned Trial Court would be in favour of the appellants. The learned counsel submitted that the appellants had duly purchased the suit land by paying a valuable consideration. Under such circumstances, the appellants want to develop the said property by making constructions. 13. In view of the said reply, this Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that if any development is made to the land, in question, it would result in changing the nature and character of the suit land and thereby it would become very difficult on the part of the plaintiff, later on, to execute the decree, in the circumstance, the suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff. Mr. S. Ali, the learned counsel for the Appellants duly submitted that the appellants are not adverse to submitting an undertaking before the Court, that in the circumstance, the suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, the appellants would hand over the possession of the land as well as the building in favour of the plaintiff and would also not create any third party rights. 14. Taking into account the said submission, this Court was of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that such an undertaking be made in the form of an affidavit before this Court. Accordingly on 09.08.2024, an undertaking was given by way of an affidavit by the appellant No.1 for himself as well as for the appellant No.2. It is also seen that the appellant No.1 has been duly authorized on the basis of a resolution passed in a Board’s meeting of the appellant No.2 held on 10.07.2024. The undertaking so given in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 09.08.2024 is reproduced hereinunder: “3. It is also seen that the appellant No.1 has been duly authorized on the basis of a resolution passed in a Board’s meeting of the appellant No.2 held on 10.07.2024. The undertaking so given in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 09.08.2024 is reproduced hereinunder: “3. That, as per the aforesaid order dated 27.06.2024, I undertake that I shall on my behalf and on behalf of appellant-defendant No.2 demolish any construction made during the pendency of the suit and hand over the possession to the plaintiff, in the circumstances, the plaintiff succeeds in the proceeding initiated. I also undertake that I and the Company shall not create any 3rd party rights over the suit land during the pendency of the suit.” 15. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court consider as to whether the plaintiff still continues to have the three elements for continuing with the injunction granted vide the impugned order. The fact that the plaintiff has a prima facie case for going for trial is not in dispute. However, the question arises as to whether there still exits other two principles i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss, harm and injury. 16. The principle of balance of convenience is based upon balancing the equities amongst the parties during the pendency of the suit. In the instant case, the plaintiff states that on the basis of an oral partition, Schedule A land fell into her share. The Defendants/Appellants refutes the same and claims that they had purchased the suit land vide two registered Deeds of Sale by paying valuable consideration. It is also the case of the Appellants that till the Deeds of Sale are not set aside or cancelled, the Appellants have every right to enjoy the properties wherein the Appellants are in possession. The learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that if there is delay in construction, there would be price escalation and unless the Plaintiff undertakes to indemnify the appellants, the balance of convenience is in favour of not continuing the injunction. In the opinion of this Court the balance of convenience would not be with the plaintiff unless the plaintiff is willing to indemnify the appellants for the loss suffered for not being able to carrying out construction. The plaintiff, however, is not agreeable to such undertaking. 17. In the opinion of this Court the balance of convenience would not be with the plaintiff unless the plaintiff is willing to indemnify the appellants for the loss suffered for not being able to carrying out construction. The plaintiff, however, is not agreeable to such undertaking. 17. The question of irreparable loss, harm and injury in the opinion of this Court to the plaintiff do not arise any further in view of the specific undertaking recorded hereinabove, inasmuch as, the appellants had given a clear understanding to demolish the construction if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit proceedings and no third party rights would be created. 18. Under such circumstances, this Court interferes with the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.1188/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.92/2023. It is pertinent herein to note that based on the undertaking given to this Court as recorded hereinabove, this Court had interfered with the impugned order dated 23.02.2024. It is, however, made clear that the appellants would be bound by the said undertaking given and violation thereof shall be construed as violation of an undertaking given before this Court for which consequences shall ensue. 19. With the above, the instant appeal stands disposed of.