Short Note : 1. Plaintiff-non-applicant applied for temporary in junction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 restraining defendant-respondents from interfering with his possession on the suit land. Affidavits were filed by the parties in support of their contentions. The trial Court after considering the same rejected the application. The lower appellate Court set aside the order made by the trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh decision by observing that the trial Court illegally took the affidavits into consideration in the matter of grant of temporary injunction. According to the lower appellate Court, affidavits could not be considered even for deciding the application for grant of temporary injunction. Held: Normally, there would have little scope for' interference with the order made by the lower Court in the matter of grant or refusal of temporary injunction. But since in the present case unarguably the lower appellate Court has acted with material irregularity which vitally affect its decision, interference is called for. There was no justification for holding that the trial Court was wrong in law or facts in deciding the matter by considering the affidavits filed by the parties Similarly the circumstance, that there was an order under section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code in favour of the applicant against the predecessor-in-title of defendant No.1 could also not be brushed aside the appropriate course for the lower appellate Court would have been to consider the material on record in the shape of affidavits or documents for deciding the correctness of the order made by the trial Court. Case remanded. Revision partly allowed.