Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. -this Civil Revision application by the plaintiff arises out of an appellate order allowing the appeal filed by the defendant nos.1 and 2 (opposite party Nos.1 and 2 herein), against an order of the trial court allowing injunction, after recording findings that the plaintiff did not acquire any title to and or possession over the lands in suit and thus no prima facie case was made out for grant of an order of injunction in his favour, that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants, and that the refusal to grant injunction would also not cause any irreparable injury to him. 2. It is not necessary to set forth the facts in detail here as they have been fully stated in the orders of the courts below. 3. The scope of a revision arising out of an injunction matter is extremely narrow (see AIR 1973 SC 76 and AIR 1976 SC 2621 ). 4. The Supreme Court in Hazrat Surat Shah Urdu Education Society v. Abdul Saheb, reported in 1988 (4) Judgments today 232, when the bombay High Court interfered in Civil Revision against an order of the appellate court setting aside an order of the trial court granting injunction in favour of a plaintiff, observed as follows :- "the High Court failed to notice that even if a prima facie case was made out, the balance of convenience and the irreparable injury were necessary to exist. No temporary injunction should be issued unless the three essential ingredients are made out, namely, (i) prima facie case, (ii)balance of convenience, (iii) irreparable injury which could not be compensated in terms of money. If a party fails to make out any of the three ingredients he would not be entitled to the injunction and the court will be justified in declining to issue injunciion. " (Emphasis added) 5. The instant revision has to be considered in the light of the aforesaid ratio decidendi of the apex court. 6. Mr. If a party fails to make out any of the three ingredients he would not be entitled to the injunction and the court will be justified in declining to issue injunciion. " (Emphasis added) 5. The instant revision has to be considered in the light of the aforesaid ratio decidendi of the apex court. 6. Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, feebly tried to assail the finding of the appellate court that the plaintiff did not acquire any title to and or possession over the land in question as being vitiated on account of errors of fact and law but could not successfully show me that the findings in regard to other two issues are vitiated even in law. Even the trial court order shows that that the settlement claimed by the petitioner was only at a final stage and that no finding was recorded about irreparable injury. 7. The contention of Mr. Prasad is hardly significant so far as this revision is concerned. It is also a settled law that a finding recorded at the time of grant or refusal of injunction does not operate as res judicata at the trial court. 8. In the result. I do not find any merit in this revision application and it is accordingly dismissed but in the peculiar facts and circumstances without cost.