1. This is a revision petition preferred by the State of Karnataka and two others who are the defendants in O. S. No. 24 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Udipi. That is a suit by the respondent against the petitioners, wherein the validity of the acquisition of the land comprised in Survey No. 415/1 of Shivalli Village, Udipi Taluk, has been challenged. The plaintiff in the suit has prayed for-
'a declaration that he should not be deprived of the property, viz., S. No. 415/1 (in Shivalli village, Udipi Taluk), owned and possessed by him by resorting to, and/or on the basis of, the notifications cited in paras 4 and 8 of this plaint and published in the Mysore Gazette on 13-9-1962 and 29-4-1965 respectively.'
2. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by issue of a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Mysore Gazette dated 13-9-1962. The final notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 29-4-1965. The plaintiff challenged the acquisition proceedings before this Court in W. P. No. 2023 of 1969 (Mys), but the same was dismissed on 4-8-1972 on the ground that it was belated. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 25-6-1973. Pursuant to the said award the Assistant Commissioner of Coondapur Division, who is the third defendant in the suit, issued a notice to the plaintiff directing him to deliver possession. Thereupon the application, out of which this revision petition has arisen, was filed for temporary injunction restraining the third defendant from taking possession of the suit land.
3. The trial Court after hearing the parties has made an order of temporary injunction and that order has been affirmed on appeal by the Court of the Civil Judge, Udipi.
4. I do not want to express any opinion as to the merits of the plaintiff's case as that may prejudice one or other of the parties in the trial of the suit. The object of an interim injunction is to keep things in status quo, so that if at the-hearing the plaintiff obtains a judgment in his favour, the defendants will have been prevented in the meantime from dealing with the property in such a way as to make that judgment ineffectual -- vide Preston v. Luck, (1884) 27 Ch D 497. A temporary injunction maintaining the status quo may properly issue whenever the question of law or fact to be ultimately determined in a suit is grave and difficult and injury to the moving party will be immediate, certain and great if denied, while the loss or inconvenience to the opposing party will be comparatively small and insignificant if granted. The party who seeks the aid of the Court in that behalf must as a rule, be able to satisfy the Court on three points; (a) that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and there is a probability that he is entitled to the relief sought by him, or in other words, that he has a prima facie case to go to the trial; (b) that the Court's interference is necessary to protect him from that species of injury which the Court calls irreparable before his legal right is established at the trial; and (c) that the comparative mischief or the inconvenience which is likely to arise from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it.
5. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have come to the conclusion that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and that there- is a prima facie case to go to the trial. They have also come to the conclusion that the interference of the Court is necessary to maintain the status quo and that the balance of convenience lies in maintaining the status quo. That being the position, there is no error of jurisdiction calling for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Accordingly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
7. I direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself before the end of this year.
8. Revision dismissed.