JUDGMENT : RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff/appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) he Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"), assailing the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned XXVII Addl. City Civil and Session Judge (CCH-09), Bengaluru City passed in O.S. No.160/2025, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an order of Temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up further construction over the suit B-schedule property. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court is one for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in respect of a residential property bearing No.25, measuring 38x48 feet more fully described as A-Schedule property in the plaint. It is a specific case of the plaintiff, that there exists a 6-feet-wide lane between the A-Schedule property and 26 th B Main Road, passing between the houses of the defendants predecessors and another person, Imam Sab, which provides only access to the plaintiff's property. This strip of land is described in the plaint as the suit B-Schedule property. 3. The grievance of the plaintiff is, that the defendants, by taking advantage of certain outdated and inconsistent measurements mentioned in the Gift Deed dated 17.01.1947, are constructing a building over the said passage, thereby obstructing access to the plaintiff's property and violating her easements rights. Along with the plaint, plaintiff has produced a rough sketch and photographs showing the existence of the passage and alleged encroachment and has sought interim relief to maintain the status-quo. 4. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings and objections, declined to grant Temporary injunction on the ground that, the plaintiff failed to establish the prima facie case so as to grant Temporary injunction. It relied on the description of the boundaries in the Gift Deed and Sale Deed and observed that, there was no mention of a 6-feet passage in the property documents. It also noted that, construction had advanced to the 1 st floor and that injuncting further construction would cause undue hardship to the defendants. By observing so, the Trial Court rejected the application with cost. 5. It also noted that, construction had advanced to the 1 st floor and that injuncting further construction would cause undue hardship to the defendants. By observing so, the Trial Court rejected the application with cost. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant with all vehemence submits that, when defendant is encroaching the 6-feet-wide strip of land situated between their houses and passage running east to west from 26 th B Main Road, forming part of the B-schedule property, thereby the plaintiff is deprived of making use of the said 6-feet-wide strip. He would submit that, on perusal of the documents so produced, so also the Gift Deed dated 17.01.1947 reveals that, there is no mention with regard to the said 6-feet-wide passage and plaintiff is constant to file the suit seeking the aforesaid relief. The plaintiff refers to her own Sale Deed which shows that, there exists a 6-feet-wide road on western side of A-Schedule property. By relying upon the said documents and grounds urged in the appeal memo, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant/plaintiff to allow the appeal and set aside impugned order and sought relief of injunction against the defendants as prayed in IA No.1. 6. As against this submission, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants justified the reasons assigned by the Trial Court and submits that, the photograph so produced by the defendants not only before the Trial Court, so also before this Court do establish that, the construction of building is already in progress and halting the said construction at this stage would cause significant hardship. There exists no 6-feet-wide passage in the manner stated by the plaintiff. Therefore, he would submit that the Trial Court is right in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material placed on record, as the plaintiff has sought Temporary injunction against defendants, the Court has to consider the principles regarding grant of Temporary injunction. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in DALPAT KUMAR V. PRAHLAD SINGH, [(1992) 1 SCC 719], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that the grant of interim injunction depends on proving a a. prima facie case, b. balance of convenience and c. irreparable injury. Unless these ingredients proved, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. 8. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in DALPAT KUMAR V. PRAHLAD SINGH, [(1992) 1 SCC 719], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that the grant of interim injunction depends on proving a a. prima facie case, b. balance of convenience and c. irreparable injury. Unless these ingredients proved, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. 8. On scrupulous reading of the entire material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the approach of the Trial Court in denying interim relief suffer from a lack of equitable appreciation of facts and documents. When plaintiff alleged that there exists a passage to approach the Main Road so situated and it is alleged that there is an encroachment by the defendants, the Trial Court ought to have considered the documents produced and would have appreciated the facts of the case so as to come to a definite conclusion about the aforesaid ingredients to grant the Temporary injunction. It is a settled principle that grant of injunctions must be considered not only on documentary title, but also on possession of user, balance of convenience and potential for irreparable harm. 9. The plaintiff has produced photographs, a rough sketch and earlier revenue documents indicating the existence of a passage since time immemorial, and the same has not been specifically rebutted by the defendants through any authoritative survey, municipal plans or boundary commission reports. The Gift Deed dated 17.01.1947 relied on by the defendants measurement of only 10x16 feet, whereas defendants are claiming ownership over a much larger portion i.e., 24x20 feet which they failed to justify adequately. Additionally, the defendants themselves relied on a Mortgage Deed dated 23.06.1979 wherein they attempted to enlarge boundaries mentioned in the original Gift Deed. This contradiction is overlooked by the Trial Court, which clearly raises serious doubt about the legitimacy of the construction. A construction made on the disputed property during the pendency of litigation, if allowed to proceed unchecked, will undoubtedly lead to multiplicity of proceedings and injustice. 10. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the defendants/respondents that, most of the construction is completed. To prove the said fact, the photographs are produced along with list of the documents dated 30.06.2025. These photographs are not disputed by the plaintiff. 10. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the defendants/respondents that, most of the construction is completed. To prove the said fact, the photographs are produced along with list of the documents dated 30.06.2025. These photographs are not disputed by the plaintiff. Though defendants submit that construction has reached its finality, it is a well established legal principle that, no person can take advantage of their own wrongful act. A party undertaking construction on the face of opposition and pending suit must be deemed to have acted at his own peril. In the light of the above facts and circumstances so brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that, while the interim relief can no longer restrain the ongoing construction, as an immediate preventive measure due to its reaching finality status, that however, the equity must be balanced in favour of reserving the alleged plaintiff legal remedy. Therefore, the Trial Court order is upheld, but subject to specific direction, protecting the plaintiff right if any, which are established during the course of trial in the pending suit. Hence, the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Trial Court in IA No.1 in O.S.No.160/2025 rejecting the Temporary injunction is upheld, however with some modifications. The construction undertaken by the defendants is strictly at their own risk and same shall subject to the final outcome of the suit. 11. In the event the Trial Court, after detailed trial and evidence finds that the construction is in violation of the plaintiff's alleged rights or encroached upon a public or a private passage, it shall be open to the Trial Court to order removal or demolition of such constructions and no equity shall be claimed by the defendants for the said structure merely because of its completion. 12. It is clarified that, the observations made hereinabove are purely for the purpose of adjudicating this appeal and shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the suit on merits. With these observations, this appeal is disposed off. No orders as to cost.