JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals, namely, F.A.F.O. No. 978 of 1990 filed by the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow and F.A.F.O. No. Nil of 1990 filed by M/s. Bhanu Pratap Singh, are directed against the same order dated 13th September, 1990. Both these appeals are, therefore, taken up and decided together. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order. 3. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 65 of 1990 against the defendants for injunction in respect of certain mining rights. Simultaneously the plaintiff also prayed for temporary mandatory injunction. The court granted the injunction as prayed on 30th July, 1990 and is under challenge in F.A.F.O. No. 978 of 1990 and F.A.F.O. No. Nil of 1990 which we have disposed of today by a separate order. 4. Subsequently to the passing of the interim order, the plaintiff again made an application in the trial court that the defendants be restrained from doing any mining operations such as digging and stacking etc. No. copy this application was served on the appellants and no opportunity of filing objection or of hearing was afforded to them. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has, however, contested this but is unable to substantiate as no counter affidavit has yet been filed. We are disposing of the matter at the initial stage and hence instead of entering into this factual controversy, we proceed to examine the legality of the order an other un-controverted material before us. 5. We are surprised to find so many inaccuracies in the impugned order the order mentions :- "On 30-7-90 the parties were directed to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the injunction matter". This is not borne out from the order dated 30th July, 1990. At another place, the court below mentions:- "Since the irregularities and illegalities have been pointed out earlier in making a rule for holding a meeting to issue permits and so it would not be proper and just that the defendant Bhanu Pratap Singh or any other defendant would carry on the work in compliance of the negotiations referred above and in the application." In fact, in the order passed on 30-7-1990 we find no mention of any irregularity at all. 6. 6. Again we find that in the latter portion of the order, the court has mentioned as follows : - "..the defendants should neither dig the mines nor should make stacking etc. at least till they have furnished full and complete information to the court as directed in the order dated on 30-7-90". This again is not indicated in the order dated 30th July, 1990. We regret to say that the trial court does not at all commend itself to us for all these factual inaccuracies glaring on the record. The court to be cautions in mentioning facts correctly, particularly those apparent on record Such inaccuracies generally creap-in when the court acts in haste or without applying its mind properly. 7. On merits, we no find any justification for this order, specially now when we have set aside order dated 30th July, 1990. However in the light of the directions given while dispose of the two appeals against order dated 30-7-1990. We hope that the court below shall dispose of the injunction matter on 15-10-1990 or within a week thereafter. These two appeals are accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.