- (1.) THE respondents Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a suit in respect of land, bearing Khasra No. 2191, situated at Thok Teliyan, Ajmer. An application for grant of temporary injunction was moved, which was decided by the Addl. Distt. Judge, No. 1, Ajmer, by his order dated 11 -4 -1986, by which he has ordered that the defendant -appellant shall not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land. He has also directed the plaintiffs to maintain status quo as regards the property. While challenging the finding of the court below, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the court below has not taken into consideration the material, which was placed on record but has merely referred to the ingredients required for the grant of temporary injunction in a superficial manner and arrived at the conclusion that the possession is that of the plaintiff and the appellant should not interfere with it. According to him the appellant had placed on record a number of documents, showing that this Sand has been entered in the revenue records as Siwai Chak land and has been handed over to the Urban Improvemant Trust and it has issued notification about a scheme for the same but no objection was ever preferred by the plaintiff respondent.
(2.) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there is a sale -deed in their favour and on the death of the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2, proceeding took place, in which this land came to be entered in the name of the respondents. They have claimed long possession on this land, over which they earlier had their house. As has been contended on behalf of both the sides, it is clear that both the parties had placed material before the court below, which could .be said to be relevant for purposes of deciding the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The learned lower Court has merely stated that the case of the plaintiff respondent appears to be strong on basis of the documents produced by them. However, no reference has been made to the documents in detail in order to show as to what are the documents, produced by them and what are the documents which have been produced by the appellants in support of their contention. All material, which is on record ought to be considered while deciding the application for grant of temporary injunction and it is not enough to say in a single line that the material placed on record has been considered but atleast something should be stated in order to show that the order has been passed after applying mind and after taking into consideration all the documents of both the sides. I may also mention that the Court, while disposing an application for grant of temporary injunction should not go to the extent of deciding the main case of the parties but the order should be a speaking order, showing that the Court has taken a decision after applying its mind. In the present circumstances, the short order of the learned lower Court does not fulfill this requisite and as such the matter deserves to be sent back to the court below for a fresh decision.
(3.) THE apeeal is accepted and the order dated 11 -4 -1986, is set -aside. The Court shall decide the injunction application afresh, within a period of three months. It is also directed that both the parties shall maintain status -quo as regards this property, in respect of possession, construction, alienation etc. for a period of three months.;