Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. This First Appeal From Order, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has arisen from the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by Civil Judge (SD) Mathura, in Original Suit No. 208 of 2011, Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Mathura Vrindaban Vikas Pradhikaran, whereby the trial court has declined to extend ad interim injunction order dated 29.3.2011 and rejected appellants' application for extention of the said injunction order. 2. The appellants filed an Original Suit No. 208 of 2011 seeking a permanent injunction against the respondent Development Authority from damaging/destructing the property of the appellants in plot nos. 997, 998 and 999 as detailed in the appended map to the plaint. An application for an ad-interim injunction was also filed. The trial court registered the suit on 26.3.2011. On 29.3.2011, after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, it passed an ex party ad -interim injunction in their favour directing the development authority to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute. The aforesaid order is at page 43 and 44 of the paper book. The trial court observed that the plaintiffs have shown their ownership over the property in question and consequently, granted injunction. The aforesaid injunction was extended from time to time. But by means of the impugned order, the extention has been declined. 3. Sri P.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned order amounts to refusal to grant ad-interim injunction to the plaintiffs, hence, this appeal. Sri Jain further submitted that once appellants have shown prima facie case and no reason was found by the trial court to deny injunction earlier, there was no reason not to continue with the ex -parte ad interim injunction granted in favour of the appellants. 4. We have heard the submissions advanced by Sri P.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. However, we are not satisfied with the submissions and in our view no interference is called for. It is not disputed by the appellants that the property in question do fall within the area of operation of the development authority. 4. We have heard the submissions advanced by Sri P.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. However, we are not satisfied with the submissions and in our view no interference is called for. It is not disputed by the appellants that the property in question do fall within the area of operation of the development authority. Neither in the plaint nor in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application hereat, there is an averment/whisper that construction/development made by the plaintiffs was in accordance with law i.e. after obtaining the approval/sanction of map/plan by the Development Authority in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Moreover, the ex-parte injunction order dated 29.3.2011 does show that on the basis of ownership, the trial court found prima facie case. With respect to other two conditions namely, balance of convenience or irreparable loss, there is no discussion at all. 6. It is well settled that before granting ad interim injunction, the court has to consider three aspects namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. If all these aspects are not considered, the order of injunction would not be in accordance with law. 7. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the appellants could not show that construction, in respect whereof they have sought protection, were raised validily and in accordance with law. Therefore, the prima facie case itself has not been shown. There is thus no reason to grant injunction as sought in this appeal. 8. However, we may clarify that observations made above are only for the purpose of considering the appeal in question and shall not be construed by the trial court as expression of an opinion on merits of the matter but it shall proceed to decide the suit and other proceedings independently after considering the material placed before it without being influenced by any observations made above. Subject to the above observations/clarification the appeal is dismissed. _