IMPORTANT POINT
Trial Court is required to apply it’s mind by taking into consideration the facts narrated in the plaint and application for temporary injunction as well as reply of the defendant if any to form opinion as to prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—This miscellaneous appeal has been brought by defendants No.3 and 4 challenging the validity of order dated 10.07.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No.72/200/ whereby, trial Court allowed application filed by respondent-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2,C.P.C.

2. Respondent-plaintiff Mohanlal filed suit in the trial Court for cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction in respect of land in dispute. Respondent-plaintiff Mohanlal pleaded in the suit that he has 13 bigha 3 biswa land in village Tanavada (Mogada) Khasra No.42/2, out of which, he executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 as per saying of defendant No.1. For the said purpose, stamp was brought by defendant No.3. Later on, however, the plaintiff found that defendants No.1 to 3 have conspired together and instead of 3 bigha land, power of attorney has been forged in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of 5 bigha land and, on that basis, defendant No.2 on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent sold 1 bigha 10 biswa land, in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 has illegally started raising construction on the said land. Plaintiff claimed that he is in possession over the disputed land. On these pleadings, the plaintiff filed application under Order 39 Rules 1&2,C.P.C. along with the suit praying for temporary injunction.

The learned trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction and passed order for maintaining status quo till disposal of the suit vide impugned order dated 10.07.2009.

Learned counsel for appellant while attacking the order impugned submits that at the time of deciding application for temporary injunction three points are required to be seen,(i) whether any prima facie case is made out, (ii) balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant, and /or (iii) if the order is not passed in favour of the applicant’ he will suffer irreparable loss. Upon consideration over the aforesaid points the application for temporary injunction is required to be decided. As per learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court was under obligation to give reasons at the time of considering prima facie case in favour of the applicant; but, in this case, no reasons have been assigned though in the pleadings of the application and written- statement material evidence and facts were brought to the notice of the Court. The learned trial Court has committed an error while treating the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff without assigning any reasons.

3. As per learned counsel for the appellant, reasons are required to be recorded for the purpose of satisfaction of the prima facie case. For the same, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(1) AIR 1993 SC 2412

(2) 1996 (2) WLC 474

(3) 2002 (4) WLC 356

(4) 2009 DNJ 191

(5) 2004 (1) SCC 691.

While citing the above judgments, it is submitted that order impugned is cryptic, order because while considering the point of prima facie case no reason or finding is given that how prima facie case is made out and, in the absence of any reason or finding with regard to prima facie case, in view of the above cited judgments, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly raised the above issue with regard to non-observance of reasons and conclusion for the satisfaction of the prima face case.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.

5. First of all, it is required to be observed that in none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant, matter with regard to grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was under consideration. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and Another, AIR 1993 SC 2412 matter was related with admission of a student and order passed in writ jurisdiction was under challenge. In that case, Hon’b