K. Lahiri, J. - (1.)AS desired by Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. G. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Respondent, we propose to take the case for hearing.
(2.)WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is the common case of learned Counsel of both the parties that the impugned order of injunction has been made following the spirit of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Apart from Order 39 and other relevant provisions contained in the Code, a Civil Court in Nagaland, cannot grant injunction. Under there circumstances, the spirit of Order 39 must be applied by the courts in Nagaland. In the instant case, the trial court, on an ex parte application filed by the Plaintiff, promptly granted injunction. Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur heard the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and reached the conclusion "Satisfied", and on being so satisfied he granted an ad -interim injunction.
Injunction should not be lightly granted as it affects the right of the other party. It may restrain the use of properly by the Defendant. The first consideration of the court is to see that there is a (sic) contention between the parties and thereafter to examine on which vide, in the event of obtaining successful result of the suit, will be the balance of inconvenience if the injunction do not issue, bearing in mind the principle of retaining status quo. The court must examine the plaint and be satisfied that the applicant has a prima facie case to go to trial. This aspect was never looked into by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. Further, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner did not consider that any protection was necessary from that species of injury known as "irreparable injury".

(3.)IN the Instant case it was for the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner to consider whether the Plaintiff could be compensated in the event of permitting the Defendant to continue with his work. Learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner did not also take into consideration the question of mischief or inconvenience likely to arise from withholding injunction would be greater than which was likely to arise from granting it. The shortfall in the impugned order is apparent and the learned Counsel for both the parties realising the short falls desire for early disposal of the suit as well as the injunction matter and that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be sent to the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur for reconsideration of the question of injunction upon, hearing both the parties. We find that the impugned order is not in accordance with the spirit of Order 39 of the Code and accordingly we set it aside. We direct both the parties to appear before the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) at Dimapur on 9th April, 1985 and receive necessary orders from him fixing the date of bearing regarding the injunction matter. In the meantime the parties may file necessary affidavits and applications. Thereafter, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner shall upon bearing both the parties dispose of the question of injunction in accordance with law. However, the suit should be tried and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from today.
;