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.) ANALYSIS of the materials on record does not mean mere reproduction of few sentences from here and there from the pleadings of the parties. The Court has to consider the case put forth by both the parties and then analyse the materials on record to ascertain to what extent the case of each of the parties finds support from such materials. Based on such analysis, the Court has to ascertain whether prima facie case has been made out by the appellant for the grant of relief prayed for. Having ascertained so, the Court has thereafter to consider the balance of convenience and further the point of irreparable loss. All these points are to be considered on proper application of mind to the materials on record and the law applicable thereto. The impugned order nowhere discloses any such exercise having been done by the trial Court while disposing of the application for temporary injunction. Being so, the impugned order cannot be sustained.