IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.507 of 2008 PARIKHA SINGH & ORS Versus RADHIKA KUER & ORS ----------- 3. 12.5.2009 Heard Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sinha points out that howsoever busy the court may be, it has to while passing an order in the matter of injunction, address itself to the three ingredients for grant or refusal of injunction. He would submit that the impugned order is not only cryptic, recording only the submissions of both the sides but in fact does not record any finding on issue of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. This Court would find that the counsel for the appellant is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact the impugned order refusing injunction is not only cryptic but is a perfunctory order. It only shows the complete non-application of mind by the court below. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter relating to grant of injunction on the injunction petition 2 filed by the plaintiff-appellant dated 14.6.2005 is remitted back to the court below which will now rehear the parties and pass a final order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the plaintiff-appellant and therefore, it will be open for the court below to re-appraise the materials on record while passing a final order on the injunction petition filed by the plaintiff- appellant. With the aforementioned observation, this appeal is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/