JUDGMENT (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This First Appeal From Order is directed against the order, dated 20-4-1995 passed by the Civil Judge, Deoria refusing to grant injunction claimed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C. P. C. The plaintiff had claimed an injunction that the defendant be restrained from interferring with the possession over the house Nos. 463 and 463/1 Ward 7, Deoria and also not to transfer the property and maintain the house in the same condition and maintain status quo. (2.) THE plaintiff pleaded that the defendant-plaintiff are real brothers, the property in dispute is ancestral THE parties are entitled to half share each, after the death of their father. THE plaintiff pleaded that the defendant got his name illegally mutated in his favour and the plaintiff has no knowledge about it. THE allegation is that the defendant is trying to usurp the entire ancestral property for himself. The defendant contested the injunction application pleaded that there have been a partition between the parties and some property had already been partitioned separately, some of the properties have been left joint between the two brothers. The court below, while considering the application for injunction, considered the scanty evidence adduced by the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has tailed to prove the prima facie case of possession and also failed to prove the balance of convenience in his favour and if injunction is not issued, irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff. After these findings, the application for injunction was refused. (3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant Sri Swaraj Prakash, vehemently argued that at this stage, it would not bo required for the court below to enter into more detailed evidence but should have passed an order maintaining status quo and since such an order has not been passed, the court below has committed a manifest error of law in refusing to grant injunction. THE learned counsel for the appellant cited AIR 1993 SC 216 - Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh. THE learned counsel placed emphasise over paragraph 5 and submitted that prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial. Only prima fade case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. THE learned counsel placed emphasise over paragraph 5 and submitted that prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial. Only prima fade case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. THE Court further has to SATISFY that non-interference by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, how ever, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. Lastly, the Apex Court while considering the question of the balance of convenience observed:- "the Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing pos sibilities or probabilities or likelihood of injury and if the court considers that pending the suit, the subject-matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued, Thus, the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit. " (4.) THE learned counsel has not appreciated the observations given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself observed that after quoting the facts of the said case where the vendee had entered into agreement to purchase a house, getting the sale deed EXECUTED, subsequent suit by the vendor for setting and the sale alleging that vendee being his counsel played fraud on him. In meanwhile, symbolical possession of property obtained by vendee, was protected by issuing the orders of status quo. If the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is appreciated and followed in true sense, the facts of the present case do not entitle any injunction as prayed. In meanwhile, symbolical possession of property obtained by vendee, was protected by issuing the orders of status quo. If the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is appreciated and followed in true sense, the facts of the present case do not entitle any injunction as prayed. The findings of the court below that no prima facie case is made out if borne out from the documentary evidence filed by the parties. There was a compromise between the parties and the properties were partitioned and some were left joint. The question of irreparable loss and balance of convenience was also considered by the court below. There was no question of any irreparable injury. The property has come under a cloud of litigation. Any one purchasing the property, would be taking risk and the Doctrine of lis pendens would protect the rights of the plaintiff. (5.) THUS, after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find that there is any error of law or jurisdiction. The first Appeal from order is dismissed summarily. (6.) HOWEVER, the court below may proceed with the case expeditiously. Appeal dismissed.