IGNATIUS BRAGANZA Vs. THOMAS BRAGANZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Leave to delete respondents No. 2 to 9. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) THE appellant challenges the Order dated 15th April, 2005 passed by the IInd Adhoc Addl. District Judge, Panaji in Civil Misc. Appln No. 254/2004 in Civil Suit No. 310/2004, being totally arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the basic law applicable to matters of temporary injunction. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent and the appellant has been restrained from running his factory in the suit premises. The appellant is also directed to close down the factory within two months from the date of the Order. The factory referred to is in relation to manufacture of cane furniture.

(3.) BARE reading of the impugned order discloses that the trial Court apart from reproducing some of the sentences from the plaint and application for temporary injunction and from some reported Judgments of different High Courts, has not at all applied its mind to the facts of the case and the rival contentions which were sought to be raised before the trial Court. It is settled principle of law that in cases relating to applications for temporary injunction, Court has to consider whether the applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case, followed by the issue relating to balance of convenience and then to consider the issue of irreparable loss to either of the parties in case of grant and/or refusal of the injunction. Without ascertaining these three aspects of the matter, the Court is not expected to dispose of the application for temporary injunction. The Court has also to bear in mind the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 of C. P. C. in such cases when the matter relates to immovable property.