K Ramaswamy, Justice: This is fourth sound of litigation relating to the same subject matter. It was started by the respondent in filing the present suit, pleading that first appellant being his counsel placed fraud on him. He sought for an interim injunction against the appellant from dispossession

Decision of trial court: the application of respondent is rejected.

Decision of high court: Allowed the application and granted Ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from taking possession of the residential portion

Order 39, Rule 1{c} provides that temporary injunction may be granted where in any suit it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise, that the defended threaten to dispossess the property or otherwise cause injury to restrain such act or make such order for the purpose of staying and preventing of the plaintiff for otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property to dispute in the suit as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suits or until further orders

Decision of Supreme court: the high court without referring to any of these material circumstances held that balanced f convenience lies in favour of granting in junction with the following observation: “Keeping in mind the history of various fact which have been brought to my notice, and looking to the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, I think it will be in the interest of justice to allow these appeals and grant temporary injunction that the appellant may not be dispossessed from the suit property the phrase ‘Prima facie case’, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are of width and elasticity to meet situation with sound exercise of judicial discussion to meet end of justice”.  The facts are speaking for itself. It is well high impossibility to find from facts prima facie case and balance of convenience. The respondent can be adequately compensated on their success.

The high court committed an error of law.

Appeal allowed