ORDER : Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. Heard learned counsel Mr. Bhuwneshwar Prasad for the appellant and the learned counsel Mr. Vishal Saurav for respondents No. 1 series on I.A. No. 5824 of 2013 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein to restrain the respondents 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) from transferring or damaging the suit property. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Bhuwneshwar Prasad for the appellant submitted that the Court below has wrongly dismissed the plaintiffs suit for partition and the purchasers from the respondents who have been added as party respondents herein are now making construction on the purchased portion and further that respondent No. 1 series are also making construction on the suit property and, therefore, if they are not restrained from either making any new construction or from transferring the suit property the appellant shall suffer serious loss and irreparable injury. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have already transferred some of the properties and the sale deeds have been annexed as A as Annexure 1 to this interlocutory application. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Vishal Sourav appearing on behalf respondent No. 1 series and also the purchasers submitted that in fact the plaintiff-appellant has got no prima facie case in view of the finding recorded by the Court below. The learned counsel submitted that the defendant No. 1 was the respondent No. 1 in this First Appeal and according to the findings of the Court below the suit property exclusively belongs to the said defendant No. 1 original respondent No. 1. So far as the ancestral property are concerned, it has already been abated under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 and so far the properties other than item No. 1 of Schedule 3 are concerned, there is clear finding of the Court below that those properties are the self-acquired property of defendant No. 1 who was the original respondent. 5. Perused the judgment impugned. 6. 5. Perused the judgment impugned. 6. From perusal of paragraph No. 34 of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Court below has clearly recorded a finding that the Schedule 2 properties were the ancestral properties which has been ordered to have been abated under Section 4(c) of the Consolidation Act. Schedule 3 properties except Item No. 1 are the self-acquired properties of defendant No. 1 and his wife. So far Item No. 1 is concerned, the Court below has granted share to the plaintiff to the extent of the share. 7. From perusal of the injunction application, it appears that no where there is any allegation that this item No. 1 of Schedule 3 property has been either transferred by the Respondents or that the Respondents are making any construction on this Item No. 1 of Schedule 3. 8. In view of the above position, I find that the plaintiff-appellant has got no prima facie case at this stage. I also find that since the Court below has recorded clear finding that except Item No. 1, the other properties are the self-acquired property of the defendant-respondent No. 1, there is no question of irreparable loss or injury arises. 9. I also find that balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant. 10. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected. 11. However, considering the age of this First Appeal, the office is directed to list this First Appeal for hearing in first week of January, 2016, if otherwise ready.