JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by learned District Judge-III, Dhanbad in Civil Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2020 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to affirm the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-III, in Misc. Civil Application No.138 of 2020 (arising out of Original Suit No.180 of 2013 and dismissed the Civil Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2020. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are plaintiffs in the Original Suit No.180 of 2013 and the suit was instituted with regard to 2.36 acres, C.S. Plot No.540, Khata No.06, Mauza- Tetulmari, Thana- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad along with other lands originally belongs to and was recorded in the C.S. records in the names of Nathu Mahto and others. He further submits that Nathu Mahto was the Grandfather of the defendant-respondent No.1- Narayan Mahto and had half share in the property and the lands were held and possessed jointly and Nathu Mahto died leaving behind his son Ram Chandra Mahto and widow Sugia Mahtain. He further submits that Ram Chandra Mahto and Sugia Mahtain felt inconvenient to possess the land with the co-sharers and as such they filed Title (Partition) Suit 18/1954 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge-1 st , Dhanbad for partition and to make separate allotment chart which was decreed on 29.04.1955 and half share was declared in their favour. He submits that later on, Sugia Mahtain died and her interest devolved upon her son Ram Chandra Mahto and later on, Ram Chandra Mahto also died leaving behind him his widow Mundri Mahtain and son Narayan Mahto- Defendant- respondent No.1 who filed an Execution Case No.83 of 1957 to effectuate the decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.18 of 1954 and the possession was delivered to them upon the land which was allotted to them in the final decree including the land-in-question. 4. 4. He further submits that Mundri Mahtain was exercising all acts of natural guardian of his minor son Narayan Mahato and sold 12.50 acres of land including the suit land of herself and her minor son through Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 to one Bamdeo Singh (father of plaintiffs) and put him in peaceful possession and after coming in peaceful possession, he got mutated the land in the Government Revenue Records and paid rent under Thoka No.216 of Mouza Tetulmari. Bamdeo Singh died leaving behind his three sons namely, Yogendra Singh, Birendra Singh and Gajendra Singh (who are the original plaintiffs) who inherited the interest. During the pendency of the suit, Birendra Singh died leaving behind his two sons and they have been substituted in his place. Thereafter, the original plaintiffs sold portions of 2.34 acres land to various persons, out of which the defendant-respondent No.1 (who is the petitioner) purchased 64 decimals vide Sale Deed No.2218 dated 25.02.1986 and received its peaceful possession. He submits that the defendant-respondent No.1 accepted the rights, title, interest of 64 decimals, but later on in year 2013, the defendant-respondent No.1 started to claim the land too described in Schedule-B (5 decimals, a portion of Schedule-A land within C.S. Plot No.540, Khata No.06) on the contention that the said Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 is a void deed. He submits that in view of this background, a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 has been preferred before the learned trial Court which has been rejected. Aggrieved with that the petitioner herein moved before the learned Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2020 under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. which has been rejected by the learned Court. 5. He submits at the learned First Appellate Court initially directed the status quo to be maintained, however, later on, at the time of final hearing has been pleased to dismiss the appeal only on the ground that permission under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act has not been taken. 6. He further submits that this registration was made in the year 1959. However, the Kurmi Caste was declared as backward in the year 1962 vide Notification No.A/T3043/61-5423-R dated 23.06.1962. He submits that the retrospective application of the said notification cannot be subject matter of rejection of the petition for injunction. 6. He further submits that this registration was made in the year 1959. However, the Kurmi Caste was declared as backward in the year 1962 vide Notification No.A/T3043/61-5423-R dated 23.06.1962. He submits that the retrospective application of the said notification cannot be subject matter of rejection of the petition for injunction. He submits that opposite parties have already constructed the first floor in the part of the portion of the land and the construction on the first floor is going on. He then submits that in view of that this petition may kindly be allowed and injunction may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Ramchandra Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposes the prayer and submits that in the plaint in paragraph No.21, the plot number is said to be 594 & 595 and where in the Schedule, the Plot No. is disclosed as 531 & 532. He further submits that the petitioners herein have purchased this plot in question vide Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 and thereafter, he has transferred part of land in one Mala Devi vide Sale Deed No. 16878. He submits that the Narayan Mahto were disturbing the possession of the Mala Devi in view of that she has instituted the Original Suit No.67 of 2005 as well as for permanent injunction which has been decided vide judgment dated 12 th September, 2011 and the learned Court considering the provision made under Section 46 has also found that the initial Sale Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 itself was not correct and it was null and void and in view of that the subsequent transfer made to Mala Devi vide its Sale Deed No. 16878 has also been declared as null and void. He submits against the said Title Appeal No.79 of 2011 has also been preferred which has been rejected. He submits that even the permanent injunction prayer was the main issue in his suit and the appeal. He further submits that some of the lands have been transferred by the subsequent Sale-Deed by the petitioners herein. He submits against the said Title Appeal No.79 of 2011 has also been preferred which has been rejected. He submits that even the permanent injunction prayer was the main issue in his suit and the appeal. He further submits that some of the lands have been transferred by the subsequent Sale-Deed by the petitioners herein. He then submits that L.A. Case No.68/92, Bam Deo Singh, who is the grandfather of the petitioner has already relinquished the interest in favour of Narayan Mahto and to buttress his argument he refers to compromise petition filed in L.A. Reference Case No. 68/92 contained at Page No.103 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. He further submits in view of that the both the Courts rightly passed the orders. As the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss has not been proved by the petitioner herein. 8. He further submits that the construction was already started prior to the institution of this case. He relied in case of “ Shiv Dayal Prasad Vs. Akhilesh Prasad and others ” , reported in 2011 3 JLJR 247 . On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be rejected. 9. In view of the above submission learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the impugned judgment as well as the documents brought on the record. 10. In the plaint of Title Suit No.180 of 2013 in the Schedule the Plot No. is disclosed 531 & 532 wherein the paragraph No.21, the plot No. is disclosed as 594 & 595. It has been pointed that the correct plot number is of the land in question is 594 and 595 where in the Schedule the plot no. is said to be 531 and 532. Thus, the injunction sought on the Plot No.531 & 532 and no amendment petition has been filed by the petitioner. 11. Thus, admittedly, the plot No.531 & 532 is said to be not correct plot number. is said to be 531 and 532. Thus, the injunction sought on the Plot No.531 & 532 and no amendment petition has been filed by the petitioner. 11. Thus, admittedly, the plot No.531 & 532 is said to be not correct plot number. The petitioner herein purchased the plot in question vide Sale- Deed No.9150 dated 20.05.1959 and thereafter, he has transferred the part of the suit land to one Mala Devi and the Narayan Mahato and others started disturbance and possession of Mala Devi and she has instituted the Suit being No. 67/05 and the learned Court has found that on the basis of the Schedule No.9150 dated 20.05.1959, the said transfer has been made to the Mala Devi vide Sale Deed No. 16878 dated 12.06.1972 and while deciding the same, the learned Court has found that in the light of the C.N.T., the Sale-Deed No.9150 in favour of the petitioner is already void and in view of that the transfer made by the petitioner herein to Mala Devi is said to be not correct and accordingly, the suit was dismissed which was challenged before the learned First Appellate Court in Title 79/2011 and the learned First Appellate Court has also dismissed the said Title Appeal on 24 th March, 2018. It has been pointed out that the construction in question was started earlier to the institution of the suit. 12. The document on the record with regard to the compromise is also contained at Page No.103 of the counter-affidavit relating to L.A. Reference Case No. 68 of 1992, wherein it is clearly stated that Bamdeo Singh has relinquished title interest in favour of Narayan Mahato son of Late Ram Chandra Mahato and four daughters of Ram chandra Mahato. 13. The suit was instituted under Section 87 of the C.N.T. by the defendant-respondent herein was also allowed in favour of opposite parties herein and it has further been pointed out that in the register-II, the correction has been made in favour defendant. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the dispute is there with regard to possession itself and the petitioner has not been able to show about his possession and right, title and interest, the only ground is taken that 1962 Notification has come later on. 14. It is well settled that an interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. 14. It is well settled that an interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima-facie material clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction. Further, the 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 to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Further, mere possessory right does not entitle a plaintiff to obtain the temporary injunction against a true owner, the ownership is not established so far the property in question is concerned of the petitioner/plaintiff. Where the property is on mutated in favour of the opposite party/defendants. A title is not proved, temporary injunction could not be granted on the basis of possession only. Further no injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the property and in the case in hand, a prayer is made for declaration of right, title, interest and handover the possession. 15. In view of the above facts, this Court finds that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. No case of interference is made out, as such this petition is dismissed. 16. It is made clear that so far the pending suit is concerned that will be decided in accordance with law without prejudice to this order, as this order has been passed only considering the parameters of injunction. 17. Pending petition, if any, is also dismissed.