Short Note : These are cross-revisions against the order dated October 1, 1974, by the District Judge, Vidisha, whereby the learned District Judge upheld the trial Court's order dismissing the plaintiff's application for issue of temporary injunction in respect of land but allowed the same in respect or the house. In respect of the land, the learned Judge has observed that there is no affidavit from the side of the plaintiff to show possession. This observation, it is agreed by learned counsel for both the sides, is not correct inasmuch as the plaintiff has filed her affidavit in support of her application. So also in respect of temporary injunction regarding the house in question the order under revision does not contain any reason, whatever. Held : Being a Court of first appeal, it was the duty of the learned District Judge to have turned out a proper order giving reasons in support of his findings Merely saying that there is no substance in a submission or that a prima facie case and balance of convenience have been established are no reasons in the eye of law. They are conclusions which should be based on certain grounds. In my opinion, the order is not at all satisfactory. It would be proper in such circumstances to send the case back to the learned District Judge to turn out a fresh order in accordance with law. Revisions allowed.