JUDGMENT In 1989, almost three years back, the petitioner came and proceeding in this Court has been held up, for a long. It is not necessary for us, therefore, to express any opinion on counsel's rival contentions pressed but we propose to dispose of this petition in terms of a short direction for a short reason. The matter arises out of an application of the plaintiff-non- petitioner No.1 made for temporary injunction and the impugned order is passed by the lower Appellate Court remanding the matter. In our view there were no scope for any remand and the remand was not proper because the plaintiff would have ample opportunity to make fresh application for temporary injunction to bring on fresh fact in regard to which the remand was made. We accordingly quash the impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Court dated 23.1.1989 but we hold that nothing observed in the said order or in the earlier order passed by the trial Court impugned in the appeal dated 30.1.1987 shall come in the way of plaintiff-non petitioner in making a fresh application for temporary injunction. When that is made that shall be heard and disposed of on merits in accordance with law. However, we make also another direction to take care of apprehension of plaintiff-non petitioner. If within two weeks fresh application for temporary injunction is filed, that shall be heard and disposed of within the statutory period of 30 days. However, we also make it clear that plaintiff-non-petitioner would also be entitled to make prayer for ad interim injunction. That prayer shall be when made, expeditiously disposed of.