The main legal point established is that for grant or refusal of injunction, the court must consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury, and should not proceed for a mini trial of the suit.

The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC has been preferred against the impugned order dated 6.12.2010 passed by Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Lucknow in regular suit 587 of 2010, Amir Alam Khan Vs. Lucknow Development Authority and another.

2. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by Sri Mohd.Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel that the Civil Judge has recorded a detailed finding on merit with regard to controversy and left nothing for adjudication. Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent submits that only factual narration has been given and there is no finding on merit with regard to controversy in question.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for parties at length, we are of the view that no finding on merit could have been recorded by the Civil Judge. It is the settled preposition of law that for grant or refusal of injunction, the court has to look into prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and injury. While adjudicating the similar controversy with regard to right of courts for grant of injunction, after considering the various pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Anupam Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd Vs. A.D.J Court No. 4, Lucknow and another, reported in 2006(24) LCD,it has held that while granting or refusing an application for temporary injunction filed under order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC,the court should not proceed for mini trial of the suit. Court has to accept or refuse an injunction application, in case, all the three conditions(supra) are fulfilled or not fulfilled.

4. A plain reading of the impugned order reveals that the trial court has proceeded ahead to record a finding after considering the entire evidence on record, broadly on merit. It shall be appropriate that application for injunction may be decided afresh strictly in accordance to law settled by this court in the aforesaid case (Supra).

5. In view of above we set set aside the impugned order dated 6.12.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge in regular suit No. 587 of 2010 and direct to restore the injunction application to its original number and decide the same afresh after affording opportunity to the parties expeditiously say within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without being influenced by the earlier order.

6. In the light of above, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.