behalf of 1st respondent to discharge the loan amount of 1st respondent, which owed to cooperative society of Kothapeta. So, there was some prima facie case appears on behalf of petitioner. In interlocutory application, the court has to see the prima facie case of the petitioner. In this instant case, petitioner has to establish prima facie case as cultivating as tenant obtained Ex.P10 loan eligibility card for the suit schedule property being tenant of it and being purchaser of the suit schedule property, he has paid final consideration amount under cover of Ex.P4 on behalf of 1s t respondent, who owed loan to the cooperative society, Kothapeta. Further, prima facie is that, he came into possession of Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 title deed and pattadar pass book by virtue of oral sale agreement. The next point is balance of convenience. The contention of petitioner appears to be bona fide; as such, the balance of convenience is laying in his favour. If the court do not grant temporary injunction, certainly it would cause irreparable loss, because, 1st respondent already created Ex.R1 mortgage deed in favour of Gangarao, who filed suit in OS No.13/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kothapeta and obtained decree against 1st respondent. Admittedly, 1st respondent preferred appeal on the file of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in AS No.100/2011 and the same is pending. Unless, temporary injunction is granted, the loss ensued to the petitioner cannot be compensated in any terms. The stand taken by petitioner that he was tenant by oral lease and purchased the same under an oral agreement of sale by paying the entire sale consideration. All these aspects have to be established by adducing evidence in the full trial only, but not in this interlocutory stage. The court has to see only the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for disposal of injunction application. Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P10 clinchingly proves the prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of petitioner that he is tenant of the suit schedule property as well agreement holder. If the petitioner was thrown away from the suit schedule property forcibly by the 1st respondent, certainly it would cause irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in any manner. In view of my discussion supra, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner established the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is in favour of petitioner. Therefore, interference of this Court is required and the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside.”
