THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.850 of 2009 And C.M.A.No.97 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. Since common questions of fact arise in these two appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants, who are defendants in the suit, filed these appeals against the orders, dated 26.03.2009 and 21.08.2009, passed by the I Additional, District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in I.A.Nos.901 of 2008 and 31. of 2009 in O.S.No.234 of 2008 respectively, filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeals are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of 1/3rd share to her and for other reliefs, wherein she filed the present applications for temporary injunction. The appellants/defendants have filed counters contesting the applications. However, without considering the matter on proper perspective basing on the respective pleadings, and without giving any reasons and findings with regard to the prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury etc., as required under Order XXXIX C.P.C., the Court below has passed the impugned order granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Hence the defendants filed the present appeal. Heard both sides and also perused the material on record. Ffor convenience sake, the impugned orders passed by the Court below are extracted below. The impugned order dated 26.03.2009 reads as under. “Advocate for D.1 and D.2 filed memo not to alienate schedule property and as respondents are not getting ready, interim injunction is granted against R.1 and R.2 not to alienate schedule property.” The impugned order dated 21.08.2009 reads as under. “Heard, petition is allowed, Injunction granted pending disposal of the suit.” From the above, it is clear that both the orders are totally bereft of any reasons. The Court below passed the orders without considering the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., and without satisfying the requirements as contemplated therein like prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable Injury, etc. Necessarily the pleadings of both sides have to be considered and reasons have to be given with a specific finding. It is too late to say that without considering all these aspects, such a one-line order, without any reasons, cannot be passed. It is also advisable that the Court should avoid such cryptic orders, especially, when they are appealable. Having regard to the same, we are of the prima facie view that the orders passed by the Court below are not in accordance with law. Neither the case, as set forth at this stage, is considered nor any finding, as required under law in an injunction application, like prima facie case, balance of convenience etc., has been given by the Court below. In view of the same, the orders of the Court below are totally unsustainable and require to be reconsidered and reheard for passing appropriate orders on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants fairly submits that having regard to the nature of remand, till the disposal of the applications there would not be any alienation with regard to the extent of the share of the respondent, until further orders Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and the orders under appeals are set aside. The matters are remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal on merits within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J.) ______________________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) 29th April, 2010 Js.