$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 191/2026, CM APPL. 41220/2026 NARESH .....Appellant Through: Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Advocate. versus MANOJ KUMAR GOEL & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 06.07.2026 CM.APPL. 41220/2026 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. FAO 191/2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the learned District Judge-2, North District, Rohini Courts in CS DJ No. 134/2026. Vide the impugned order, the appellant/plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking restraining of the respondents/defendants from creating third-party interest in the suit property and from interfering with the appellant’s possession, came to be dismissed. 2. The appellant instituted the underlying suit seeking a permanent injunction and declaration of title by way of adverse possession in respect of 2 Bighas of land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jindpur, Delhi (hereinafter the “suit property”). According to the appellant, his father This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:38:22 entered into actual, physical and exclusive possession of the suit property in the year 1990 and, upon his demise, the appellant continued in uninterrupted possession thereof, hostile to the interests of the respondents. The appellant approached the Trial Court seeking interim protection under apprehension of being forcibly dispossessed and, vide order dated 17.02.2026, the Trial Court directed that the appellant not be dispossessed from the suit property till the next date of hearing. 3. Thereafter, upon the subject application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 being pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the Trial Court heard the parties and passed the impugned order. A perusal of the same reveals that the Trial Court took note of the fact that the respondents are the recorded owners/Bhumidars of the suit property as per the revenue records. The Trial Court further observed that the plaint did not disclose the exact month or date on which the appellant or his predecessor allegedly entered into possession. It also took into consideration the respondents’ pleas regarding the deployment of a caretaker on the suit property in the year 1992 and the inspection of the property by Canara Bank at the time of sanction of a loan during the years 1999-2000. Upon an overall appreciation of the material placed before it, the Trial Court concluded that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting grant of interim injunction and dismissed the subject application. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon certain geotagged photographs, annexed as Annexure P-2 to the present appeal, to support the appellant’s plea of settled possession. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent strongly objected to the same, contending that these photographs were taken after the passing of the impugned order. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:38:22 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. The geotagged photographs relied upon by the appellant disclose that they were captured on 10.06.2026, i.e., subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 19.05.2026. Admittedly, these photographs were not part of the material available before the Trial Court and therefore cannot be taken into consideration while examining the correctness of the impugned order. It is also not in dispute that the respondents are the recorded Bhumidars of the suit property in the revenue records, which carry a presumption of correctness. 7. It is trite that for the grant of a temporary injunction, the applicant must satisfy the triple test: i) a prima facie case; ii) balance of convenience; and iii) irreparable loss (Ref: Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co.1). 8. In the present case, the appellant’s pleadings do not disclose the exact month or date from which the alleged adverse possession commenced. The circumstances were found sufficient to dislodge the appellant’s claim of a prima facie case at the interlocutory stage. Insofar as the balance of convenience is concerned, the respondents continue to be the recorded Bhumidars of the suit property. As regards the appellant’s apprehension of creation of third-party rights, the Trial Court has already directed that in case any third-party interest in the suit property is created by the respondents, the alienee shall be intimated in writing about the pendency of the underlying suit, thereby sufficiently safeguarding the appellant’s interest by virtue of the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In these circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:38:22 the impugned order and the same is accordingly upheld. 9. The present appeal is dismissed and disposed of in the above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 6, 2026 nb 11 (1995) 5 SCC 545 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:38:22