CRP 246/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL This revision application is directed against the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1 in Misc (J) Case No. 101 of 2009, arising out of Title Suit No. 42 of 2009, whereby the learned Munsiff has allowed the plaintiff/opp osite party to adduce oral evidence. Being aggrieved with this order the opposite party has preferred this revision application. I have heard Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the p etitioners and Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents , who has appeared by way of filing Caveat. I have also perused the impugned order dated 6 .7.2009. Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners ha s submitted that the suit has been filed challenging the tender process for issu ing letter of intent and work order for hiring of services for operation and ma intenance of 02 Nos. of Hot Oil Circulation Units of Assam Asset for a period of three years. According to Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the entire suit is based on th e legality of the NIT, particularly clause for furnishing EPF and also fixing d ay rate charges. According to the learned Senior counsel the legality of these c onditions of the NIT can be decided without any oral evidence since the defendan t/opposite party do not dispute about these conditions in the NIT. According to the learned Senior counsel at any rate evidence can be led in the suit but no ev idence is required to decide the application of temporary injunction. On the other hand, Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the res pondents has submitted that by way of giving evidence the plaintiff desires to b ring on record the relevant documents to show that the conditions are not valid. At this stage I am not inclined to deal with the rival submissio n at length, inasmuch as, it may prejudice either party as well as the trial cou rt while disposing of the prayer for temporary injunction. However, as held by t his court in the case of Rajib Barooah Rohitas Barooah, reported in (1993) 1 GLR 247 that an application for temporary injunction should be decided as early as possible without going through full length procedure of examination and cross e xamination of witnesses. This court has observed that if a lengthy procedure is adopted the very purpose of granting injunction will be frustrated. Similarly, i n the case of Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others Vs Pune Municipal Corporation a nd another, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 33, the Apex court has held that while gran ting injunction the court should also consider the likely impact of the order on the public purpose. Apart from above, under Order 39 Rule 3A it is the mandate of t he law that an application for temporary injunction should ordinarily be decided within a period of 30 days. In view of legislative mandate, the trial court is directed to decide the application as early as possible since the ad interim o rder in the nature of status quo dated 6.2.2009 has been passed ex parte and th ereafter the opposite party has appeared and filed their objection on 11.6.2009 and by now the statutory period of one month is already over. With regard to giving oral evidence, since the learned Munsiff h as already decided to record oral evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. However, it is made clear that t he evidence should be restricted only for the limited purpose of injunction and it should not be converted into a mini trial of the suit. It is further made cl ear that no further adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of giving oral or documentary evidence of the plaintiffs/petitioners for injunction purpose. Since the case has been fixed on 30.7.2009 the evidence of t he petitioners shall be closed on that day and thereafter the oral argument may also be heard on the same date if the opposite parties are not interested to giv e rebuttal evidence. With the above observations and directions, this revision petiti on stands disposed of.