JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below, rejecting the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction u/0. 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants claiming joint ownership in immovable property at 5th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. The injunction was claimed on the ground that the plaintiffs are joint owners of the property and construction is being made on the suit property without their consent, and, therefore, the injunction. The learned trial Judge, on a careful consideration of the material on record, rejected the application for injunction after finding as a fact that no prima facie case exist in favour of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction and that no irreparable loss would be caused if the construction activities are allowed to continue. This order is affirmed by the appellate Court. 3. The concurrent orders are assailed before me on the ground that material irregularities have been committed by the learned Judge by non-consideration of certain documents which spell out joint ownership of the plaintiff with the defendants. This aspect has been considered and decided by me in Civil Revision No. 619/95. The findings, therefore, need not be repeated in this case also. 4. It has been found by me that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove any irreparable loss being caused to them by the construction. It is obvious that any construction which results in addition to an immovable property, can never cause loss, much less irreparable loss to an owner of that property. The value is bound to appreciate. In such circumstances, there can be no question of any irreparable loss being caused to the plaintiff. The rejection of the application of injunction is, therefore, proper and was rightly upheld by the appellate Court. 5. In any case, the question regarding prima facie case and irreparable loss are questions of fact which have been elaborately, properly and carefully dealtwith by the Courts below. There is no jurisdictional error which requires interference with these concurrent orders. 6. Several cases were cited at the Bar in support of the proposition that the injunction may be granted to prevent irreparable loss. There is no jurisdictional error which requires interference with these concurrent orders. 6. Several cases were cited at the Bar in support of the proposition that the injunction may be granted to prevent irreparable loss. There can be no dispute regarding this position in law but having found as a fact that no irreparable loss is caused, these cases are of no assistance to the plaintiffs. 7. These, therefore, are the reasons for the dismissal ordered earlier.Revision Dismissed. *******