MFA 83/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard S. Chouhan, l earned counsel for the respondents. This appeal is preferred against the orders dated 2/6/03 and 21/6/03 passed by t he learned Additional District Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Title Suit N o.1/2001. By the impugned order dated 2/6/03, the learned trial Court on filing of an application for issue of temporary injunction against the defendants, gran ted temporary injunction until disposal of the Title Suit 1/2003 with liberty to the defendants to approach the Court to file application for setting aside or m odification of the order so passed. By impugned order 21/6/03, the learned Court on the petition of the plaintiffs ordered for the appointment of a receiver in the suit land and directed Nazir to attach the suit land excluding the homestead . From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that on filing of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiffs fo r issue of temporary injunction restraining the defendants not to sale, encumber , dispose or alienate the suit land or any part thereof and also to sale or misu se the cattle heads and appropriate house rent from the tenants occupying the su it land without hearing the defendants, appellants herein, in other words by not giving an opportunity of being heard, allowed the application granting temporar y injunction until disposal of the suit being No. TS 1/03. From a perusal of the order, it appears that the 3 golden principles for the purpose of granting temp orary injunction have not been discussed by the learned trial Court while passin g the impugned order without giving any opportunity of presentation of their cas e. The learned counsel for both the parties however, in the face of the impugned order, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and quashed and the m atter may be remanded to the trial Court to take fresh look on the injunction pe tition and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The learned counsel for both the parties also contend that the appointment of th e receiver also cannot sustain in law. It is submitted by both the parties that the impugned order 21/6/03 also be set aside and quashed and the matter on this point may also be remanded back to the trial Court to give a fresh look on the i ssue raised by the plaintiff. In view of the order passed by the learned trial Court in the manner as indicate d, both the orders are set aside and quashed and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to dispose of the application(s) filed by the plaintiff in accor dance with law. Both the petitions are directed to be disposed of within a perio d of 3 months. Parties to the proceeding shall make their presence available bef ore the trial Court within a period of one month.