A trial court cannot decide the questions raised by the petitioner in the suit at the preliminary stage of the proceedings when called upon to consider if the plaintiff has a prima facie case for an injunction. An appellate court's order refusing an injunction must be a speaking order and must give reasons for the refusal.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an appellant in the appeal out of which it has arisen, challenges an order of the appellate court declining to grant ex-parte injunction to the appellant even while admitting to hearing the appeal of the appellant against the order of trial court, dismissing an application of petitioner for an injunction to restrain the Corporation from demolishing the premises in dispute during the pendency of this suit for a permanent injunction.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner obtained on lease a piece of land on Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Paharganj, on which a structure was raised, which was destroyed in March 1972 in a fire which devastated a large number of other structures in the vicinity. According to the petitioner, the super-structure was repaired by the petitioner and a large number of other stall holders, who were members of the stall holders Association, on the assurance of the authorities, and when the super-structure was sought to be demolished, the petitioner challenged the notice of demolition before the Additional District Judge in appeal which was eventually accepted and the matter was remanded to the Corporation for decision according tco law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was asked by the Corporation to appear before the Zonal Engineer omarch 22, 1974 along with the documentary evidence in support of his contention. According to the petitioner, the petitioner along with a number of other affected stall holders went to the office of the Zonal Engineer, but the Zonal Engineer was not available until 4 P. M. on which the petitioner and the other stall holders called on the Chairman of the Sub Zonal Committee of the Corporation and apprised him of the fact. According to the petitioner he came to know that a demolition order had been issued on which the Association sent a letter of March 28, 1974 to the Corporation protesting against the action and seeking opportunity for its members of being heard. In April 1974, the petitioner. filed the suit, out of which the petition arose, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the structure, inter alia, on the ground that the threatened demolition was contrary to law inasmuch as the petitioner had neither been given an opportunity of being heard nor had the order of demolition been served on the petitioner as required by Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an application for an interim injunction seeking to restrain the Corporation from demolishing the structure during the pendency of this suit. By an order of September 6, 1975, the trial court dismissed the application after notice to the Corporation and after hearing the parties on the ground, repelling the contention of the petitioner to the contrary, that the petitioner had been granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the demolition order was made and the demolition order had been duly served on the petitioner and that the demolition notice being neither illegal nor without jurisdiction the suit of the petitioner was not maintainable by virtue of Section 343 (4) of the Corporation Act and that the proper remedy of the petitioner was to file an appeal against the notice of demolition. In the course of the order the trial court noticed the contention of the petitioner that when the petitioner went to the office of the Zonal Engineer on March 22, 1974, the Zonal Engineer was not available and that the petitioner along with other stall holders went to the Chairman of the Zonal Committee at 4. P. M. and that the petitioner was therefore, never heard before the order was made. The trial court also noticed the further contention of the petitioner that at no stage was the demolition order served on the petitioner. The trial court, however, re