JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff's revision against the order dated 25th Feb. 1986 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 1 Alwar who accepted the appeal against the order dated 22nd December, 1978 passed by the Additional Munsif No. 1 Alwar and dismissed the petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction. This order has been challenged in this petition. 2. The land in dispute measures 311/2 feet * 425 feet. This is by the side of main road. The claim of the petitioner is that this land was sold to him by Khawas Shivnath Singh and a 'patta' was issued and he has in possession over it from long time. Besides this case under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act was also decided in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner's tenants have been using this open land and the non-petitioner Nagar Sudhar Nyas Alwar should not be allowed to make constructions upon this land. 3. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners on the other hand claimed that the land in dispute is Nazool Property and vests in the Improvement Trust and is part of the Government land. it is also submitted that they are merely constructing a side walk or 'Patri' on the disputed land and that this would not in any manner affect the rights of the petitioner. 4. Both the courts below have discussed the material which has been produced by the parties and at this stage I would not like to make a detailed reference to the same. The case is still to be decided by the court and opinion cannot be expressed on the merits of the case. 5. In order to grant a temporary injunction the applicant has to prove that he has a prima facie case in his favour and irreparable loss shall be caused to him if the prayer is not granted and that balance of convenience is in favour of grant of injunction. Unless all three ingredients are satisfied an injunction cannot be issued. 6. In the present case I would not like to touch the question of prima facie case and balance of convenience because I am satisfied that this is not a case wherein irreparable loss would result to the petitioner in case injunction is not granted. Admittedly the petitioner is using this plot by letting it out to some 'patti vendors'. 6. In the present case I would not like to touch the question of prima facie case and balance of convenience because I am satisfied that this is not a case wherein irreparable loss would result to the petitioner in case injunction is not granted. Admittedly the petitioner is using this plot by letting it out to some 'patti vendors'. They do not have any sort of construction on this land. What the non-petitioners are constructing is also not some building which would alter the nature of the land. They merely want to construct a 'patti' in the nature of 'footpath' or 'side-walk'. If the same is allowed to be constructed it will not cause any irreparable loss to the petitioner. However it is clarified that in case the non- petitioners make any construction in the nature of 'foothpath' on the disputed land during the pendency of the suit they would not be entitled to claim any compensation in case the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. The defendant shall make construction on their own risk. With these observations this petition is dismissed. The record of the case be returned immediately.Revision dismissed. *******