IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.835 of 2010 DR. PHRAMAHA PHAN SUPHAJARO (THAKRATHOKE) Versus DR. ARREE PONGSAI @ DR. NACHHI ----------- 3. 24.01.2011 I.A. No. 343/11. Through the I.A. petition the appellant has prayed for stay of the operation of the order but in view of the office report that the sole respondent despite service of notice has chosen not to appear, the matter has been heard finally on merits. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2010 passed by A.D.J.-I, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2009 by which injunction has been refused in the matter. The claim of the appellant was that he had been appointed abbot of the Dhammadali in India WAT THAI Bodh Gaya, Nalanda but the respondent claimed wrongly that she was the abbot and obtained the letter of administration in L.A. case no. 1/2008 and is operating the bank accounts of the temple illegally. On going through the order impugned, I find that admittedly a letter of administration had been given to the respondent no.2 with an indemnity and, therefore, for the present, the appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie in his favour which is one of the essential ingredients in matters of grant or refusal of injunction. In view of such, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. At this stage, appellant submits that on account of this order impugned the respondent no.2 thinks that she can continue to operate the bank accounts as and how she wishes which is not the spirit of impugned of order. I may clarify that as and when the appellant considers it necessary to further challenge the action of the respondent he may not be precluded from doing so. With these observations, the application is dismissed. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )