1. This application is filed for an injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents etc., from making any illegal constructions over the suit schedule property and not to alter the nature of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The suit in the lower court, out of which the appeal arises, was filed for a partition, separate possession etc. The same was dismissed and therefore, the plaintiffs are in appeal in this appeal.

3. The appeal was filed in the year 2006 and there an order was passed in September, 2006 after hearing both the learned counsels restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for both the parties.

5. As per the affidavit, in March, 2018, they came to know that the respondents are making illegal constructions in the suit schedule property. It is stated that they went to the site in March, 2018 took photographs and moved an application I.A. No.1 of 2018. Later, they withdrew the said application and filed a fresh application. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that as the case is one of partition, if the constructions are allowed to be made, the rights of the appellant would be prejudiced. It is his contention that the constructions would come in the way of his clients if they succeed in the appeal and it would lead to future complications. He also argued that the constructions that are being made are illegal constructions without any proper approvals or sanctions. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the constructions should be immediately injuncted against and stopped.

6. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents argues that all the constructions being made are legal constructions after securing the necessary approvals. He therefore, strongly urges that there are no illegal constructions whatsoever that are being made. He draws that attention of this Court to various permissions that are obtained, In addition, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to para 3 of the counter affidavit filed and argues that there is virtually no pleading about prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury which are essential ingredients under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. His submission is that the said non-pleading is fatal to the petitioners case. He also points out that I.A. No.1 of 2018 was withdrawn, for reasons not known to the respondents. He therefore, states that the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them from seeking an injunction. Therefore, it is his submission that there are no merits in the application at all.

7. The point for consideration is, whether the petitioners are entitled to an injunction as prayed for.

8. This Court notices the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh (1) (2013) 9 SCC 491 = 2013 (6) AL T 19.1 (DN SC) and also Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jackde Sequeria (Dead) (2) 2012 (3) ALT 5 (SC) = AIR 2012 SC 1727. Both the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India deal with the question of granting an injunction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that granting of an injunction is a serious matter and that the Court has a duty to consider the pleadings and documents before granting any order. The three essential elements which have to be satisfied are prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss. In addition, the conduct of the party who seeks an injunction is also an important factor. The serious repercussions that arise out of an order of injunction are also highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre (3) AIR 2012 SC 437 = 2012 (5) ALT 31.3 (DN SC).

9. This Court notices that in the affidavit filed in support of the application, there is no whisper about the prima facie case, balance of convenience and about the irreparable loss. The re