Thus plaintiff at this stage failed to establish her prima facie case to seek for injunction. Balance of convenience is concerned, it is more in favour of the 1st defendant because admittedly, defendants 1 and 2 were running the Elahi Brick Industry. When the plaintiff failed to establish that she obtained the industry and the site either from a different landlord or from the defendants, it has to be presumed that 1st defendant is still in possession of the same and running the industry. Ex.R.1 is a TOT Registration Certificate issued by A.P Commercial tax Department for M/s. Elahi Bricks Industry. The 1st defendant is shown as owner of the said industry. It was issued on 07.02.2016 i.e, much prior to the filing of instant suit. It manifests that 1st defendant is the owner of the said Brick Industry. Further, Ex.R.5—representation made by D.1 to the S.P, Kadapa would reveal that D.1 borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from D.2 and D.2 pressurised him for repayment and took away Rs.50,000/- stating that he would secure bank loan for him. For payment of the remaining amount, on the demand of D.2, he entrusted the factory to D.2 who paid him at the rate of Rs.10,000/- p.m for 3 months and later did not pay any amount and when questioned D.2 threatened him. Thus Ex.R.5 manifests the disputes between D.1 and D.2. It would appear, R.2 wanted to somehow entrust the Brick Industry to the plaintiff. From these facts, it is clear that the balance of convenience is in favour of D.1 as he was running the Brick Industry by obtaining the TOT Registration Certificate before suit. If injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff, he would suffer. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the 1st defendant deserves the interim injunction. The lower Appellate Court was thus right in setting aside the interim
