Judgment 1. In this appeal under Order XLIII Rule l(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (In short "the Code"), the challenge Is against the order of the trial Court, the Court of Sub Judge VII, Patna, dated 8-3-2002 passed in T. S. No, 267 of 2000, whereby, interlocutory relief, in form of injunction, restraining the appellant original defendants from disposing of the suit properties, came to be granted. 2. The appellants are the original defendants against whom respondent-plaintiff filed a suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought interlocutory relief, in terms of injunction againstthe appellants -original defendants so that the suit properties may not get lost or transferred or alienated, pending the suit. An application for grant of injunction, therefore, was submitted, which was opposed and challenged by the appellants original defendants. 3. The trial Court, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, reached to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the respondent original plaintiff and irreparable loss would also be caused to him, if interlocutory relief of injunction is not granted against the disposal of the suit property against the defendants appellants before me. 4. There is no doubt about the fact that in order to succeed in suit, or, for interlocutory relief of injunction under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code, the party is obliged to show that (i) there is a prima facie case in his favour; (ii) the balance of convenience is in his favour and (iii) irreparable loss shall be sustained, if injunction is refused to him. 5. It is not the case that one of the conditions, i.e. prima facie case, will suffice, but all the three aforesaid grounds must co-exist. Merely because an agreement to sell is executed in favour of the appellants-original defendants, there is no perfect title in favour of the original defendants, appellants before me. 6. 5. It is not the case that one of the conditions, i.e. prima facie case, will suffice, but all the three aforesaid grounds must co-exist. Merely because an agreement to sell is executed in favour of the appellants-original defendants, there is no perfect title in favour of the original defendants, appellants before me. 6. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and evaluation of the materials on record, at the prima facie stage, this Court is of the opinion that interlocutory relief in the form of injunction granted by the trial Court against the appellants original defendants and in favour of the respon- j dent-original plaintiff, during the pendency I of the suit, cannot be said to be, in any way, unjust, unreasonable, and perverse requiring interference by this Court under Order XLIII rule (l)(r) of the Code. This Court is satisfied that there is no substance in the present appeal. Consequently the appeal shall stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.