In order to obtain a temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, show that the balance of convenience lies in his favor, and demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable loss or injury if the injunction is not granted.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against order dated April 27, 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1999 thereby affirming order No. 22 dated June 14, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Chandannagar in Title suit No. 47 of 1999.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the suit property is the joint property of the parties and that the defendants should not be permitted to make any construction on any part thereof without any partition and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the property and from creating any disturbance in the joint possession of the petitioners in the property.

( 3 ) IN the aforesaid suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties from making any construction over the property in question.

( 4 ) THE case made out by the petitioners in the plaint as well as in the application for temporary injunction can be summarized thus:

( 5 ) THE suit property which is described as 86 decimals of land in Khatian No. 479, plot No. 492 of Mouza Kishmat Apurbapur, district Hooghly is the joint property of the parties and the parties are in joint possession thereof. There has been no partition by metes and bounds at any point of time and that in the settlement record, name of the parties are recorded as co-sharers. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are illegally trying to make construction over the better portion of the property after turning down the objection raised by the plaintiffs. Hence the suit for declaration and injunction.

( 6 ) THE aforesaid application for temporary injunction was opposed by the opposite parties by filing two sets of written objections, one by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and other by defendant No. 3. In both the written objections, the prayer of the petitioners has been opposed and the objection raised by the opposite parties are as follows.--

(A) The suit for injunction was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. All the heirs of rajendranath Mitra, Nagendra-nath, Jogendranath, Mahendra-nath, Sabitri, Jagattarini as well as swapan Kumar Khan are necessary parties and the defendant No. 2 was unnecessary party as he had already conveyed his interest in the property. (b) The suit property was amicably partitioned among co-sharers long ago and the petitioners and other co-sharers were allotted with eastern portion which is more valuable than the western portion. In the eastern portion, there is a dwelling house and the plaintiff is staying in the eastern portion of the property and are themselves making construction thereon. The eastern portion is well demarcated by partition or boundary wall and there was separate entrance for the plaintiff and other co-sharers in the said property. The person, who transferred the property in favour of defendant No. 3 was in exclusive possession of the demarcated western portion. (c) Even the sisters of the plaintiffs had not been impleaded. Moreover, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 executed one sale deed on August 12, 1997 in favour of one Swapan Kumar khan, son of late Gobinda Pada khan in respect of some portion of the suit plot and the said swapan Kumar Khan has not been made party. (d) There were so many deeds in which the fact of mutual partition and demarcation of the 4 property among the co-sharers has been admitted.

( 7 ) FOR the purpose of hearing of the aforesaid application, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who has noticed in his report that the portion occupied by the plaintiffs is demarcated by a separate wall and in the portion of the plaintiffs also, a new construction has bee