This is a revision against an order dated 3.1.81 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Goalpara at Dhubri in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1/81. 2. Smt. Sarala Bala Roy instituted a suit being T. S. 512 of 1980. She filed a petition supported by an affidavit praying for injunction restraining Defendant 2, 3 and 4 from receiving com­pensation from defendant No. 1 (the State of Assam). The learned Munsiff issued notice to show cause why injunction as prayed for, should not be granted and, in the meantime granted ad-interim injunction, restraining defendants 2, 3 and 4 from receiving compensation from defendant No. 1 and fixed 9.1.81 for show­ing cause. The defendants instead of showing cause before the learned Munsiff went up on appeal on the next day and the learned appellate court registered the appeal as Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1981 and by an ex-parte order stayed the operation of the order dated 2.1.81 passed by the learned Munsiff. It is apparent that the learned Munsiff had issued the temporary injunc­tion. It is true that it was not full, fair and adequate order. The learned Munsiff did not state specifically what necessitated such a stringent action for granting injunction. It also does not show that the learned Munsiff considered any relevant factor necessary for granting injunction. However, it is implicit in the order itself that if the compensation amount was received by defendants 2, 3 and 4, the main claim of the petitioner-plaintiff would have been infructuous and she would have been compel­led to amend, alter the plaint to obtain further relief. Under these circumstances, perhaps the learned Munsiff issued the order. 3. Now the next question is whether the appeal was compe­tent. There is a right of appeal under Order 43 C.P.C The petitioner has categorically stated in her petition that while pre­ferring the appeal Shri Alakesh Chandra Barua, the appellant, never prayed for stay of the order dated 2.1.81 supported by any affidavit. There is undoubtedly an application, but had the learned Judge jurisdiction to pass an exparte order to the prejudice of the other side. The stay order issued by the learned Munsiff was to restrain the defendants to receive the compensation. Such an order did not cause irreparable harm or injury to the defen­dants. The learned appellate court stayed that order and fixed 24.1.81. The stay order issued by the learned Munsiff was to restrain the defendants to receive the compensation. Such an order did not cause irreparable harm or injury to the defen­dants. The learned appellate court stayed that order and fixed 24.1.81. By virtue of the stay order, the defendants could have obtained the money and made the appeal itself infructuous. No court should pass such an order in aid of a party which makes the suit, case or appeal infructuous on exparte application of one of the parties to the ligigation. No reason was recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order dated 3.1.81 as to why he thought it fit to stay the operation of the impugned order. No judicial order can be supported if it does not have the backing of reasons. Under these circumstances, I am cons­trained to hold that the impugned order dated 3.1.81 staying operation of the order of the Munsiff was absolutely without jurisdiction being arbitrary. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that in fitness of things the impugned order dated 3.1.81 may be set aide and the learned Assistant District Judge, Goalpara be directed to hear the appeal and dispose it of within a month from the date of receipt of the records. 4. In the result, I set aside the impugned order dated 3.1.81 staying operation of the order dated 2.1.81, passed by the Assis­tant District Judge, Goalpara, Dhubri and direct him to hear and dispose of the appeal within a month from the date of receipt of the records. However, the learned Judge, with the consent of the parties, may give necessary direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose the suit expeditiously, instead of entertaining and disposing of the appeal. What I feel is that the suit must be disposed of at an early date and the injunction matter should be expeditiously heard. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.