- (1.) THE appellant defendant has laid this appeal against the impugned order dated 12.2.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh, whereby the application of the respondent plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was allowed.
(2.) WHILE granting the temporary injunction, learned Court below has restrained the present appellant defendant from alienating property and further from taking any steps for conversion of the user of land and to maintain status quo. The main suit was preferred by the respondent plaintiff for specific performance of contract against the appellant and other respondents. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has straneously urged that the learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, has not recorded any finding on the two ingredients for granting of temporary injunction namely; Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss. According to Mr. S.L. Jain, the order impugned on both the issues is absolutely vague and cryptic.
(3.) ASSAILING the finding of the learned Court below on the first issue, namely prima facie case, Mr. S.L.Jain has argued that the learned Court below has not examined the matter in right perspective, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.;