IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.174 of 2009 SMT.SAROJ DEVI Versus SMT.KANTI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2. 23.4.2009 Heard Counsel for the appellant. Few impugned orders can be more perverse than the present one. The entire consideration of injunction prayed by the plaintiff-appellant has been decided in one paragraph and that too without any discussion. It is always expected from a trial court that while considering the prayer for grant of injunction it would at least refer to the case including pleadings of both parties and records its finding on the three ingredients, namely, prima-facie case balance of convenience and irreparable loss. This court would however find that in a partition suit even when the plaintiff- appellant had come out with a specific case of the threat of being disposed from a residential premises of her share, it was lack of effort on the part of the Court below to have not even looked into the pleadings on this issue in the plaint as also in the stand of the defendants in the written statement. The approach of the court below that since the issues have not been framed and the parties have not filed their original documents can hardly be a consideration for rejecting the prayer of injunction. Infact If there was any such requirement of looking into any document the same could have been very well taken on record for examining the three ingredients of grant of 2 injunction. That being so, this Court would find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby set aside with a direction to the court below to reconsider the prayer of injunction and decide the same within the period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Narendra/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )