JUDGMENT : 1. This application is filed for an injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents etc., from making any illegal constructions over the suit schedule property and not to alter the nature of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The suit in the lower court, out of which the appeal arises, was filed for a partition, separate possession etc. The same was dismissed and therefore, the plaintiffs are in appeal in this appeal. 3. The appeal was filed in the year 2006 and there an order was passed in September, 2006 after hearing both the learned counsels restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property. 4. This Court has heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. As per the affidavit, in March, 2018, they came to know that the respondents are making illegal constructions in the suit schedule property. It is stated that they went to the site in March, 2018 took photographs and moved an application I.A. No.1 of 2018. Later, they withdrew the said application and filed a fresh application. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that as the case is one of partition, if the constructions are allowed to be made, the rights of the appellant would be prejudiced. It is his contention that the constructions would come in the way of his clients if they succeed in the appeal and it would lead to future complications. He also argued that the constructions that are being made are illegal constructions without any proper approvals or sanctions. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the constructions should be immediately injuncted against and stopped. 6. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents argues that all the constructions being made are legal constructions after securing the necessary approvals. He therefore, strongly urges that there are no illegal constructions whatsoever that are being made. He draws that attention of this Court to various permissions that are obtained, In addition, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to para 3 of the counter affidavit filed and argues that there is virtually no pleading about prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury which are essential ingredients under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. His submission is that the said non-pleading is fatal to the petitioners case. His submission is that the said non-pleading is fatal to the petitioners case. He also points out that I.A. No.1 of 2018 was withdrawn, for reasons not known to the respondents. He therefore, states that the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them from seeking an injunction. Therefore, it is his submission that there are no merits in the application at all. 7. The point for consideration is, whether the petitioners are entitled to an injunction as prayed for. 8. This Court notices the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh (1) (2013) 9 SCC 491 = 2013 (6) AL T 19.1 (DN SC) and also Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jackde Sequeria (Dead) (2) 2012 (3) ALT 5 (SC) = AIR 2012 SC 1727 . Both the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India deal with the question of granting an injunction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that granting of an injunction is a serious matter and that the Court has a duty to consider the pleadings and documents before granting any order. The three essential elements which have to be satisfied are prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss. In addition, the conduct of the party who seeks an injunction is also an important factor. The serious repercussions that arise out of an order of injunction are also highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre (3) AIR 2012 SC 437 = 2012 (5) ALT 31.3 (DN SC). 9. This Court notices that in the affidavit filed in support of the application, there is no whisper about the prima facie case, balance of convenience and about the irreparable loss. The respondents rightly pointed out that non-mentioning of these essential factors is fatal to the petitioners case. Unless and until, the affidavit filed in support of the injunction application makes out prima facie case and the deponents states on oath that the balance of convenience is in his favour and there is a risk of irreparable loss, the Court cannot consider the same. There should be sufficient averments for a prima facie case and about balance of convenience and also irreparable loss. The sufficiency of the statement in the affidavit is however a matter for the Court to decide. There should be sufficient averments for a prima facie case and about balance of convenience and also irreparable loss. The sufficiency of the statement in the affidavit is however a matter for the Court to decide. If these aspects are pleaded or stated in the affidavit with some amount of certainty, respondents will also reply to the same. Then the Court can examine these essential ingredients for granting an injunction. If the same are not mentioned in an affidavit, the Court cannot wade through the documents/pleading etc., and search prima facie case is made out and if the petitioner has a balance of convenience in his favour or if there is a risk of irreparable loss. 10. Therefore, this Court holds that it is the burden of the deponent of the affidavit to state on oath that these three fundamental pre-requisites exist in the case. Sufficient particulars must also be given about these three essential pre-requisites so as to enable the Court to appreciate the same. The absence of such averments in the affidavit in the opinion of this Court is fatal to the case of the petitioners. 11. In addition, this Court also notices that the constructions that are being made are not per se illegal. The respondents with their counter affidavit have filed documents 2 to 14 which show that permissions were obtained for conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural use and Gram-panchayat approvals were obtained for the construction. This is only a prima facie opinion that is being expressed at this stage. Therefore, e prima facie examination of the material shows that there are no illegal constructions that are being made. Even otherwise, the respondents have stated that a part of the suit schedule property was covered by marriage function hall by 1995 and that apart other constructions were also there even prior to the impugned suit. Therefore, granting an injunction at this stage cannot arise in the view of the Court. 12. It is needless to say as the suit is for partition, if the appellants/plaintiffs succeed, appropriate remedies can be worked out at the time of his success. 13. For all these reasons, this Court holds that there are absolutely no merits in the application and the same is dismissed.