Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard Smt. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner filed Suit No. 445 of 2013 on 31.5.2013 for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant/respondents alongwith an application for temporary injunction. The plaintiff/petitioner on request got the suit adjourned for 4.7.2013 and again it was adjourned for 9.7.2013 and on the said date an ex parte injunction was granted. Aggrieved, the respondent/defendants preferred Misc. Appeal No. 93 of 2013 (Rajendra Goel and another v. Yogesh Agarwal and others). The appellate Court by the impugned order dated 16.12.2013 set aside the temporary injunction order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the trial Court which is assailed in the present petition.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner, that the trial Court has assigned reasons as required under proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 while granting ex parte temporary injunction and it is the discretion of the Court to grant injunction, which ordinarily should not be interfered by the appellate Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of her submission Smt. Chitra Agrawal v. Jagdish Saran Goel, 1995 (1) ARC 80; Shiv Saran Goyal and others v. M/s. Kedar Nath Om Prakash and others, 1989 (1) ARC 351; Badri Prasad v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, AIR 2002 All 198; M Gurudas v. Rasaranjan, 2006 Law Suit (SC) 745 and Akbar Ali v. District Judge, 2004 Law Suit (All) 309.

5. In rebuttal, Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that grant of ex parte injunction is exception to the general rule. The temporary injunction can be granted after notice to defendant inviting objections. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the trial Court for granting ex parte injunction, which is mandatory.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 3 JT 654; Road Flying Carrier and another v. General Electric Company of India Ltd., AIR 1990 (All) 134; Kan Construction and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Allan Deo Noronha and another, 2007 (2) AWC 1539.

7. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

8. The power to grant temporary injunction is the discretion of the Court. The discretion, however, should be exercised reasonably, judicially and on sound legal principles; ex parte injunction should not be lightly granted as it adversely affects the other side. The grant of injunction is in the nature of equitable relief.

9. The first rule is that the applicant must make out a prima facie case in support of the right claimed by him and the Court must be satisfied that there is a bona fide dispute raised by the applicant, and there is a strong case for trial which needs investigation and a decision on merits and on the facts before the Court there is a probability of the applicant being entitled to the relief claimed by him. The existence of a prima facie right and infraction of such right is a condition precedent for grant of temporary injunction.

10. The Courts should not examine the merits of the case closely at that stage or try to restore a conflict of evidence nor decide complicated question of fact and law which call for detailed arguments and mature considerations. They are matters to be dealt with at trial. The grant or refusal of temporary injunction is not a mini trial.

11. In deciding a prima facie case, the Court is to be guided by the plaintiff’s case as revealed in the plaint, affidavits or other materials produced by him. Explaining the ambit and scope of the connotation “prima facie’ case, in Martin Burn Limited v. R.N. Banerjee, 1958 AIR 79; the Supreme Court observed as follows :

“A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of