CMPMO 255 of 2008. 30.3.2009 Present: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.R.Kashyap, counsel for respondents 1 and 3 to 10. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG for respondent No. 2. This is the defendant’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in appeal against the order on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the plaintiffs- respondents. In the suit instituted by the plaintiff- respondents, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 being CMA 124/6 of 2007 was filed with a prayer that the petitioner- defendant be restrained from dealing with the suit land till the pendency of the suit. On a detailed consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Court declined injunction. The plaintiff appealed and the learned appellate Court disposed of the application on the ground that the only injunction which the appellant-plaintiff sought -2- was for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit. This was construed as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and probability of the plaintiff’s succeeding in the main suit. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the learned appellate Court has not dealt with the matter in a judicial manner. Neither have the facts been considered or attempt made to prima facie garner important facts for reaching at a conclusion on the basis of established legal principles, and the principles applicable under the law for grant of interim injunctions have been ignored. Learned counsel made detailed submissions on the merits of the case to urge that the case set up by the plaintiff was false and the question of balance of convenience existing in his favour did not arise. I do not intend to go into the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as any observation made by me would be construed as an expression adjudicating on the merits of the case. -3- It was the duty of the appellate Court to have reached the conclusion prima facie on the facts on record and the order should not have been conjectural. I do not find any reasoning in the order. True that an order granting or refusing to grant an interim injunction need not be a detailed order. But neither can it be so terse as to leave everybody guessing about the reasons for reaching a particular conclusion. Without saying anything more, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the order passed by the appellate authority is quashed and set aside. The learned court shall hear the parties afresh and render its decision in accordance with law. Parties through their learned counsel to appear before the learned appellate Court on 4.5.2009. March 30, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.