ORDER : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s): “(i). By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and order dated 02.06.2018 (Annexure-3) may kindly be restored. (ii). Any other order or direction relief which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts, which germane for decision of this writ petition are that the respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (Annex.1). They claimed that they are the lawful owners of the suit property and alleged that the petitioner (Ashok) is trying to dispossess them and interfere with their peaceful use and enjoyment of the property. 3. In response, the petitioner submitted reply (Annex.2) while denying respondents’ ownership over the suit property and stated that the respondents are only in permissive possession of the first floor, while the rest of the property is in his possession and prayed for dismissal of the application for temporary injunction. 4. The learned Trial Court after hearing on the application for temporary injunction, by its order dated 02.06.2018 (Annex.3), partially allowed the application for temporary injunction and granted relief limited to the first floor, based on the petitioner’s own admission that the respondents were in possession of that portion. 5. Dissatisfied with this limited relief, the respondents filed an appeal, which was initially dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 19.08.2019. The respondents thereafter being aggrieved of dismissal of their appeal, approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition, which writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 18.10.2019 while remanding the matter back to the appellate court for a fresh decision. 6. Upon the matter being remanded, the appellate court, by order dated 17.08.2023 (Annex.4), allowed the application for temporary injunction in its entirety and restrained the petitioner from interfering with the respondents’ use and enjoyment of the entire suit property during the pendency of the original suit. 6. Upon the matter being remanded, the appellate court, by order dated 17.08.2023 (Annex.4), allowed the application for temporary injunction in its entirety and restrained the petitioner from interfering with the respondents’ use and enjoyment of the entire suit property during the pendency of the original suit. The appellate court also restrained the petitioner from transferring, alienating, or handing over the property to any third party until final disposal of the case. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2023, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate court committed a serious error in law and fact by granting full protection to the respondents without any evidence showing their possession over the entire property. He argued that the Trial Court had correctly limited the injunction to the first floor, as the petitioner had admitted permissive possession only of that portion. 8. He further contended that the appellate court increased the injunction arbitrarily, without properly examining the case record or the documents on file, such as construction bills and rent agreements, which show that the petitioner is in possession of the ground floor. It was also argued that the respondents failed to establish any clear title or ownership, particularly when they themselves admitted in their pleadings that the suit property originally belonged to the petitioner’s father. According to the petitioner’s counsel, this admission casts serious doubt on the respondents' claim and makes their suit for injunction legally unsustainable. 9. It was further argued that the appellate court ignored the requirement under law that possession or ownership must be clearly established before an injunction is granted in cases relating to immovable property. The petitioner’s counsel contended that there is no finding of irreparable loss or balance of convenience in the impugned order, and that the appellate court wrongly reversed the Trial Court’s reasoned decision without sufficient justification. Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the Trial Court's order dated 02.06.2018 ought to be restored. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the appellate court’s order and submitted that the respondent wife, Smt. Santosh, has been in peaceful possession of the property for over thirty years, ever since she was given the property by her deceased in-laws after separation from her husband, the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the appellate court’s order and submitted that the respondent wife, Smt. Santosh, has been in peaceful possession of the property for over thirty years, ever since she was given the property by her deceased in-laws after separation from her husband, the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner has been residing separately and has no valid documents to prove ownership or possession. 11. He further submitted that the respondent wife has maintained the property for many years and continues to live there with her children, and that the appellate court rightly protected her from any interference or dispossession by the petitioner. It was contended that the appellate court correctly appreciated the facts and evidence, including possession-related documents, and rightly passed the order restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession or transferring the property during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the respondents argued that the writ petition should be dismissed and the impugned order should be upheld. 12. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and examining the material available on record, this Court finds that the appellate court committed an error in setting aside the Trial Court’s order dated 02.06.2018. The Trial Court had confined the temporary injunction to the first floor of the suit property, which was admitted by the petitioner to be in the respondents’ possession. However, the appellate court, by its order dated 17.08.2023, erroneously granted full relief to the respondents without properly considering the fact that they had prima facie failed to prove their possession or ownership over the entire suit property, especially the ground floor. 13. This Court finds that the appellate court did not discuss the material on record, such as construction documents and rent agreements submitted by the petitioner, which prima facie indicate that the petitioner was in possession of other parts of the property. Moreover, the appellate court’s order does not contain any finding regarding irreparable harm, balance of convenience, or prima facie case, which are essential before granting such interim relief. 14. The expansion/increasing of the injunction beyond the first floor caused undue prejudice to the petitioner at this interim stage. Therefore, this Court finds that the appellate court’s order is not legally sustainable to this extent. 15. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. 14. The expansion/increasing of the injunction beyond the first floor caused undue prejudice to the petitioner at this interim stage. Therefore, this Court finds that the appellate court’s order is not legally sustainable to this extent. 15. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The appellate court’s order dated 17.08.2023 (Annex.4) is modified to the extent that the temporary injunction granted earlier by the Trial Court vide its order dated 02.06.2018, restraining the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the respondents first floor of the suit property, shall remain in force. However, to protect the subject matter of the dispute during the pendency of the main suit, both parties are hereby restrained from transferring, selling, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property until the final decision of the suit. 16. Stay Petition as also other application(s), if any pending, shall also stand disposed of.