JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.8.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby while partly allowing the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the appellant-plaintiff-applicant the trial court has restrained the respondent-Murli Agarwal from further transferring the suit property, however, he has been permitted to raise construction at his own risk and peril on his filing an undertaking that in case the suit filed by the plaintiff succeeds, then he would not claim any right based on such construction. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant seeking partition of the suit property claiming 1/27th share in the property and as the suit property had been transferred by registered sale deed dated 20.9.2010 to respondent Murli, relief regarding the said sale being declared void was also sought. Along with the suit, an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed. 3. A reply to the application contesting the contents and prayer was filed, which has been decided by the impugned order dated 2.8.2013. 4. The trial court found a prima facie case in favour of the appellant, but while dealing with the aspects relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury noticing the facts which had come on record on account of the Commissioner Report and photographs indicating that the construction which stood at the site had already been demolished and there was a big crater and a likelihood of the surrounding houses being under threat on account of the said demolition, the trial court found that the balance of convenience was in favour of passing the order as passed by it. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that once the Court found a prima facie case in favour of the appellant and admittedly when the property has not been partitioned, the direction as issued by the trial court permitting the respondent to raise construction was not proper. 6. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not approved passing of such order and the judgment of this Court in Narendra Jaypal & Ors. v. Jethmal Barvad & Anr., wherein a injunction directing maintenance of status quo granted by the trial court was upheld. 7. v. Jethmal Barvad & Anr., wherein a injunction directing maintenance of status quo granted by the trial court was upheld. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial court and submitted that the appellant despite being well aware of the transfer and/or consequent demolition of the suit property choose to remain silent for a long time and therefore, he had no right to question the transfer. It was further submitted that the order impugned passed by the trial court is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was placed on Narendra Kante v. Anuradha Kante & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 77 . 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. While finding prima facie case in favour of the appellant, the trial court held that the appellant would be at best entitled to 1/27th share in the suit property. Thereafter, while dealing with the aspect relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the trial court on considering the facts that the suit property had been purchased by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 7,51,000/- and the existing construction had already been demolished and though the house was surrounded by other buildings on three sides for the purpose of raising construction, the land in question has been dug up for laying down foundation and RCC pillors raised by the respondent were standing on the site, found that if the respondent is restrained from raising construction, the same will put not only the suit property but the nearby construction also to a threat of demolition and the rain water etc. may damage the said houses and therefore, found that balance of convenience was in favour of permitting the respondent to raise construction and that there was no question of any irreparable injury being cause to the appellant. 10. It is trite law that merely because a party has got a prima facie case by itself does not entitle it to seek injunction unless balance of convenience lies in his favour and he is likely to suffer irreparable injury in case injunction as sought was not granted. 10. It is trite law that merely because a party has got a prima facie case by itself does not entitle it to seek injunction unless balance of convenience lies in his favour and he is likely to suffer irreparable injury in case injunction as sought was not granted. The learned trial court has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of its consideration on balance of convenience and irreparable injury and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial court on the aspect of balance of convenience and irreparable injury does not call for any interference. 11. So far as judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (supra) itself has observed that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit,the Court should not pass the orders of the nature which have been passed in the present case. As observed above, the trial court has given cogent reasons regarding the balance of convenience and irreparable injury and therefore, even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the appellant, the order cannot be faulted. 12. The judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Jaypal & Ors. (supra) was passed in a case where the trial court had passed injunction ordering status quo which was sought to be questioned in the appeal. The fact situation being totally different, the judgment has no application. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed.