JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellants along with Mr. P.C. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant appeal is filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) CPC read with Section 17 (2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 against the impugned Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Aizawl in CMA No. 437 of 2023 and CMA No. 458/2023, arising out of Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022, wherein a temporary injunction was granted to the present respondents and the present appellants were directed to restrain from taking any unlawful action such as using physical force or by words, sign or gestures or cause physical or mental harassment or to make it unpleasant or intolerable for the present respondents No. 2 & 3 and also from interfering with the tenants of the plaintiff No. 1/present respondent No. 1 from collecting monthly rent in the CMA No. 437/2023. In CMA No. 458 A/o CMA No. 437/2023, the present appellants were also directed to remove the door locks fitted by them in the main door of the suit property and to restore goods and personal belongings of the tenant. 3. A brief fact of the case is that the deceased F. Pazawna had constructed 3 (three) storied RCC building within the area covered under LSC No. 104901/01/583 of 2012 located at Chawnga Road, Khatla, Aizawl. The present appellant No. 4 and his family along with the present respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are residing on the top floor or the RCC building which is also the main family building (INPUI), which is given house No. E-60. The present appellant No. 1 and his family are residing in the middle floor and given house No. E-60(1). The ground floor is occupied by present appellant No. 2 and their house is numbered as house No. E-60(2). The deceased F. Pazawna had also constructed 4 (four) storied RCC building numbered “House No. E-60/B’ within the area covered of the said LSC. 4. The issue between the appellants and the respondents is in respect of the first floor of E-60/B building concerning the tenants and the persons who should collect the rents. 5. The deceased F. Pazawna had also constructed 4 (four) storied RCC building numbered “House No. E-60/B’ within the area covered of the said LSC. 4. The issue between the appellants and the respondents is in respect of the first floor of E-60/B building concerning the tenants and the persons who should collect the rents. 5. An Heirship certificate application was filed by the present respondents No. 1 to 3, which was registered as Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022, for issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of the building left by their deceased father F. Pazawna and also with regards to the collection of rents from the tenants in the building. The present respondent had then filed an application for grant of temporarily injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC against the appellants to restrain them from doing any action and to restrain them from collecting monthly rent from the tenants till further order or final disposal of the application which was registered as CMA No. 437 of 2023. The learned trial court then passed the impugned order dated 3.11.2023, in CMA No. 437 of 2023. 6. Aggrieved, the appellants have now filed the instant appeal against the order dated 30.11.2023 in CMA No. 437/2023 arising out of Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022 and have also prayed for setting aside the subsequent orders dated 30.11.2023 in CMA No. 458/2023 arising out of the impugned CMA No. 437/2023. 7. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present respondents were the plaintiffs in Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022. The prayer in the plaint of the present respondents did not contain any relief sought by them by way of granting an order of permanent injunction and as such, in the absence of such a prayer, the learned Trial Court had erred in granting the impugned temporary injunction which was not prayed for in the plaint. In support of his submission he has cited Gadadhar Barman vs. Ranendra Mohan Paul, (1998) 1 GLR 383. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned trial court had failed to determine the applicant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. As per the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the court is required to consider: (1) Whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned trial court had failed to determine the applicant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. As per the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the court is required to consider: (1) Whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. (2) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of passing the order of injunction. (3) Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if an order of injunction would not be passed as prayed for. 9. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court had failed to satisfy itself that the 3 (three) mentioned ingredients necessary for grant of temporary injunction was found against the present appellants before passing the impugned injunction order dated 30.11.2023. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned trial court had erred in passing a permanent injunction order whereas the application and prayer made by the respondents in CMA No. 437/2023 is for grant of temporary injunction till the final disposal of the pending Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022. 10. The learned counsel has relied on the following authorities: The learned counsel also cited the decision of the Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar and Another vs. Prahlad Singh and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 719 , wherein the Apex Court had held that the phrases “prima facie case” or “balance of convenience” and “irreparable loss” are not rhetoric phrases but that sound exercise of judicial discretion is to be used in given facts and circumstances to meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel has also cited the decision of this court dated 20.03.2024 in The Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Shri Sanghluna in FAO No. 1/2024. 11. Mr. P.C. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the appellants have failed to make a mention of a connected CMA No. 457/2023, wherein the application made by the instant appellants for the suit land be kept under lock and key till the final disposal of the pending Heirship Certificate No. 1604/2022, was dismissed, finding that the instant application is in connection with CMA No. 437 of 2023 arising out of Heirship Certificate No. 1604/2022. 12. 12. The learned counsel submits that since there is no prayed for setting aside the instant order dated 30.11.2023 in CMA No. 457/2023 which arises out of Heirship Certificate No. 1604/2022 the instant appeal cannot be sustained. 13. In rebuttal Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said CMA No. 457/2023 is the subsequent order passed bases on the impugned CMA No. 437/2023 and that if the impugned CMA No. 437/2023 is set aside, the subsequent orders will also automatically stand set aside. 14. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, it is seen that the learned trial court while considering the application made by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents, had failed to consider and pass a reasoned order based on the settled principle of law while considering an application under Order 39 Rule 1. The learned trial court had not discussed the cardinal principles: (1) Whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. (2) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of passing the order of injunction. (3) Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if an order of injunction would not be passed as prayed for. The Apex court in Dalpat Kumar and Another vs. Prahlad Singh and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 719 , wherein the Apex Court held in Para 5 that: “5. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise that there is “a prima facie case” in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona-fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona-fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that noninterference 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 cause 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.” 15. It is also seen that on plain reading the order passed by the learned trial court that the nature of the order appears to be a permanent nature while the applicants in CMA No. 437/2023 had only prayed for an interim injunction order till the final disposal of Heirship Certificate No. 1604/2022. 16. It is also noted that no prayer was made in the plaint for issuance of permanent injunction order against the instant respondents in respect of the disputed property, while it was observed by this Court in the Principal Seat in Gadadhar Barman vs. Ranendra Mohan Paul (Supra) that a prayer for temporary injunction may be made only in aid of permanent injunction made in the plaint. 17. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this court find it fit to set aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 and remand the matter back to the learned trial court to consider afresh the application made by the present respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 in CMA No. 437/2023 for issuance of interim order by taking into considering the 3 (three) cardinal principles mentioned above by hearing both the parties afresh. 18. Accordingly, RFA No. 16 of 2023 stands disposed of as above.