JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiffs have filed this revision against the orders of the courts below rejecting their application for injunction. 2. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of Defendants opposite parties by Ratnakar Nayak was illegal and for permanent injunction with alternative prayer for recovery of possession if found to be dispossessed. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed seeking to restrain the present opposite parties from proceeding with,further construction of the house over the disputed land. After hearing both the sides, the trial court rejected such application by order dated 7-9-1998. The said order having been confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court, the present revision has been filed. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners vehemently contended that the courts below misconstrued the pleadings of the patties and wrongly assumed that Plaintiffs were not in possession. It is further submitted that the Petitioners would suffer, irreparable loss and injury if the Defendants would be allowed to make construction over the disputed land as the nature 'of the land would be changed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that the findings of the courts I below that no prima facie case had been established cannot be' ) accepted in view of the various materials on record. The learned Counsel appearing for opposite parties has refuted the contentions of the Petitioners and submitted that in view of the concurrent findings, no order of injunction should be passed.. The learned Counsel has also submitted that in case the Petitioners ultimately succeed in the suit, if so directed, vacant possession of the disputed land can be given. 4..Any detailed discussion relating to merits of the contentions raised by both parties particularly relating to title is likely to prejudice either party. Suffice it to say that at this 1977 (1) C.W. R 121 stage it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case in favour of the Petitioners. However, law is well settled that for obtaining an order of injunction, the party has not only to show prima facie case, but also to establish balance of convenience in his favour and further that irreparable loss would be caused unless injunction is granted. However, law is well settled that for obtaining an order of injunction, the party has not only to show prima facie case, but also to establish balance of convenience in his favour and further that irreparable loss would be caused unless injunction is granted. Even assuming that there is prima facie case in favour of the Petitioners, of the aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, both the courts below have come to particular conclusions. Such conclusions of the courts below cannot be characterized as without jurisdiction or perverse. The conclusions that no irreparable loss would be caused and balance of convenience is in favour of the present opposite parties appear to be justified particularly in view of the submission made by the counsel for present opposite parties before the lower appellate court and reiterated in this Court to the effect that in case the Plaintiffs succeed in the suit, necessary direction for recovery of vacant possession can be given and no equity would be claimed by the present opposite parties on account of any construction raised on the disputed land. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the orders passed by both the courts below are confirmed. The suit, should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a, period of six months from today. Needless to point out that the suit has to be disposed of in accordance with law on the basis of evidence on record without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned orders as well as in the present order. 5. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed