Short Note : 1. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties passed the order to the effect that in case the non-applicant gave certain undertaking the application of the applicants for temporary injunction shall stand rejected. Against that order the non-applicant went in appeal to the Court of Additional District Judge, Neemuch. The applicants also filed cross objection. The lower appellate Court, after examining the record and making spot inspection found that a 30 ft. wide passage is left by the non-applicant just behind the shops of the bus-stand. In view of this situation of the spot the Court below was of the view that there was no necessity on the part of the non applicant to give any undertaking. The Court below, therefore modified the trial Court's order accordingly. However, in the impugned order no mention with respect to the cross-objection of the applicant was made. The applicants have, therefore, come to this Court in revision. Held: The trial Court had rejected the applicant's application for temporary injunction on the condition that the non-applicant shall give an undertaking that it will not cause any obstruction to the passage by constructing the but-stand. As a matter of fact the trial Court ought to have first obtained the undertaking and then it should have disposed of the application with respect to temporary injunction. However, the lower appellate Court found that the non-applicant had already left 30 ft. wide passage which could be used by the applicants for going to their fields. The Court below, was therefore of the view that it was not necessary for the non-applicant to give any undertaking that they will not obstruct the passage. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the applicants by the impugned order. It may be observed that in case the non-applicant at any time in the future makes any interference in the applicants' alleged right of way he can again move the trial Court for grant of temporary injunction. It is true that the Court below in the impugned order ought to have disposed of the cross-objection of the applicants as well. It may, however. be noted that in the cross-objection the applicants had claimed the grant of temporary injunction. Obviously when there was no necessity to grant any ad interim injunction in view of the fact that 30 ft. It may, however. be noted that in the cross-objection the applicants had claimed the grant of temporary injunction. Obviously when there was no necessity to grant any ad interim injunction in view of the fact that 30 ft. wide passage was already left by the non-applicant no prejudice is caused to the applicants on account of the omission on the part of the appellate Court to dispose of the cross-objection. As a matter of fact the injunction having been refused to the applicants on the ground that no obstruction is caused in the right of way of the applicants, the cross-objection of the applicants stood disposed of automatically. Revision dismissed.