Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against order dated 3.2.2006/4.2.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Gopalganj allowed the injunction petition filed by the plaintiffsrespondents and directed the defendantsappellants to maintain status quo. 3. The aforesaid suit out of which this Miscellaneous Appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for partition of ancestral properties and the plaintiffs-respondents alleged that the defendants-appellants were making construction over the suit land. 4. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on records, it appears that the impugned order dated 4.2.2006 has been passed by the learned court below only on the assumption that there was an undertaking given by the defendants in their show cause that they did not want to make any construction. It is also apparent from the impugned order that the essential ingredients for passing such an order have not been considered by the learned court below. 5. However, from perusal of the show cause dated 22.9.2005 (annexure-4), which was the only show cause filed by the defendants, there is no averment that the defendants did not want to make any construction, rather in paragraph 5 of the said show cause it had been only stated that up-till-then no construction had been made. In the said circumstances, there was no undertaking by the defendants that they will not make any construction in future. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned court below misconstrued the materials on record and has come to a factually wrong conclusion for passing the impugned order. Furthermore, the learned court below has completely ignored the essential ingredients for passing such an order, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 6. In the said circumstances, this Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the learned court below dated 3.2.2006/4.2.2006 is hereby set aside and the learned court below is directed to consider the injunction matter afresh in accordance with law and the case laws including the one in case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Smt. Krishna Shahi & Ors., reported in 2007(1) BBCJ 587 [: 2007(2) PLJR 565, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It may be noted here that this court has not made any comment with respect to the merits or otherwise of the injunction matter.