JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. This instant revisional application arises from the impugned order dated 03.12.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal 246 of 2012 by Learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah. 2. Feeling aggrieved at it the petitioner/plaintiff has chosen this forum for his redress. According to the petitioner the Learned First Appellate Court fails to appreciate position of law and co-sharership of the petitioner in respect of Dag No. 755 and 756 and thereby caused miscarriage of justice. It is stated that initially he got favourable order from the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the form of status quo but that order is upset by the Learned First Appellate Court. 3. As against this opposite party/defendant appeared before this Court and showed the other side of the shield, at the time of hearing. 4. According to the petitioner/plaintiff factual aspect is such that suit plot No. 755 and 756 measuring about 10-satak 6-satak respectively belong to Tarani Charan Mondal, Priyanath Mondal and Surendra Mondal had 4 annas share each and Bechuram Mondal and his brother, Satish Chandra Mondal had 2 annas share each and their names are appearing in the L.R.R.O.R. Priyanath Mondal died leaving behind his three sons Dhiren, Kalipada and Sarat. There was amicable family settlement and in terms of that settlement Dhiren, Kalipada and Sarat got entire plot No. 755 and 756. Dhiren died leaving Panchkari who died leaving behind his wife Pravabati and then she inherited 1/3rd share. Sarat died leaving two daughters, namely, Sefali Mondal and Mathrani Mondal and they inherited 1/6th share each. Mathrani died leaving this defendant as her only share. So according to the petitioner/plaintiff defendant got only 1/6th share in the suit property. 5. But this fact has been disputed by the opposite party/defendant. According to him on the basis of amicable family settlement predecessor of the plaintiff/petitioner got the entire property of suit plot No. 755 and 756 but during their lifetime they sold their property to Sarat Mondal. After the death of Sarat that property devolved upon his wife Kamala and two daughters, namely, Sefali alias Bhandari and Mathrani i.e. opposite party's mother Mathrani died leaving her husband Pasupati and three sons. Kamala and Sefali transferred their share by registered deed dated 22.09.1998. Ventilating his such grievances he has prayed for dismissal of the revisional application. 6. After the death of Sarat that property devolved upon his wife Kamala and two daughters, namely, Sefali alias Bhandari and Mathrani i.e. opposite party's mother Mathrani died leaving her husband Pasupati and three sons. Kamala and Sefali transferred their share by registered deed dated 22.09.1998. Ventilating his such grievances he has prayed for dismissal of the revisional application. 6. It is trite law that while disposing of the injunction application, the Court is to consider prima facie case, balance of convenience and inconvenience, irreparable laws which cannot be compensated by money. 7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that L.R.R.O.R. stands in their name but they could not file any document whatsoever in support of their contention. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to ruling reported in 2010 (3) CHN (SC) 128, 1983 (4) SCC 31 , (2004) 8 SCC 199, 2002 Cal. L.T. (63) 2002 Cal. L.T. Page 72. I have gone through the said decisions and in my view those judgments do not fit in this case. 8. On the contrary defendant/opposite parties submission is such that they got the property of Sarat Chandra Mondal by way of registered deed dated 22.09.1998. They have shown Khajna receipt and deed to establish their prima facie title and possession. Petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie case by showing any cogent document that he has co-ownership in the suit property. 9. In such circumstances, I am unable to differ from the order impugned. Accordingly the revisional application fails. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah, as well as the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court, Uluberia, for their information and taking necessary action. 11. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and Order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.