FAO 22/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr HK Deka, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr P Sundi, the learne d counsel for the appellants. Considering the nature of dispute raised by the appellants as we ll as the manner in which the trial court has passed the impugned order refusing the temporary injunction, I am of the view that this case can be disposed of at the admission stage without issuing notices to the respondents. The appellants, as plaintiffs filed a Title Suit 216/2010 before the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati for declaration of their title and for permanent injunction etc. Simultaneously, they also filed an applicatio n under Order 39 Rule ‰ of CPC for granting ex-parte temporary injunction to res train the respondents from their dispossessing of the suit land pending disposal of the connected suit. The case of the appellants is that they are the owners of the suit lands and are in possession thereof, which are being deprived of by the respondents illegally. The application of the appellants for interim injunc tion was refused by the trial court by a cryptic order, which is in the followin g terms : Perused the case record and heard the learned advocate appearing for the petiti oners/plaintiffs. Record reveals that the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed thi s suit for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation/recovery of po ssession and permanent injunction. Considering the nature of the case and relie f sought for with respect to the suit land, in my view, no exparte order can be passed at this stage. Hence, the prayer of exparte temporary injunction is reje cted at this stage. However, issue notices to the Opp/defendants to show cause as to why the temporary injunction as prayed for shall not be granted. The peti tioners/plaintiffs will take steps. The trial court has evidently lost sight of the principles for g ranting interim injunction, which have been reiterated by this Court as well as the Apex Court from time to time. Before granting or refusing the interim injun ction, the trial court is required to consider : 1) Whether the party applying for injunction has a prima facie case; 2) Whether the balance of convenience lies with the party applying for inju nction ? and; 3) Whether irreparable damage will be caused to him if no interim injunctio n is granted ? In my opinion, the trial court has arbitrarily proceeded with th e case and refused to grant the interim injunction without any rhyme or reason. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and other jurisdictional errors infirmities, which call for interference of this Court. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The case is remanded to the trial court fo r rehearing on the application of interim injunction filed by the appellants in accordance with law. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. An attempt s hall be made by the trial court to dispose of the application for interim injunc tion within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain the status quo on the suit land as on today. The trial court will communicate this order to the respondents wit hout any delay.