( 1 ) IN the suit filed by respondent 1 in the Court below, appellant figured as defendant 13. In that suit, an order of temporary injunction being passed against him on 8-5-1987, he is aggrieved and has appealed. I have gone through the impugned order and I must say that criticism of appellant's counsel against that order of being cryptic and perfunctory is well justified.

( 2 ) THERE is no discussion at all in the impugned order of pleadings of parties to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case to go to trial except the cryptic finding that in the suit for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit land, in the course of trial, it had to be determined to which of the parties had breached the contract. Surprisingly, despite having noted that the contract sought to be enforced was executed by defendant 2 in favour of the plaintiff and that the said defendant had sold the land to others and further sales were made of the same land, learned Additional District Judge did not take care to examine if under those circumstances, plaintiff could still hope to succeed in the suit and get a decree for specific performance. Similarly, ev