J. G. CHITRA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these two persons appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that they do not have any cause to show so far as the admission of this petition is concerned. Therefore, this petition stands admitted and for the reasons stated hereunder this petition is being decided today finally, as a short question arises for determination which would be conveying guidelines to the subordinate Courts as to what should be the approach while dealing with urgent matters which have been filed during vacation for seeking urgent orders to meet out urgent needs. ( 2 ) THIS question is dealing with exhibition of film 'bewi No. 1' which was to be exhibited in Sapna-Sangeeta Talkies owned by the petitioner who was entitled to exhibit it under an agreement and necessary certification from the Central Board of Film Certification of Govt. of India. The learned District Judge, Indore, while dealing with an urgent hearing application praying the District Court to exercise Civil Jurisdiction in summer vacation held that the said suit and application for injunction was not deserving to be urgently heard in vacation. The District Judge, Indore directed Shri Dalal, the counsel for the petitioner, to file the suit and application after the summer vacation. ( 3 ) SECTION 21 of M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for convenience) makes a provision by its sub-section (4) by providing that the District Judge may provide such arrangements as he may deem fit for disposal of urgent civil matters during vacation. It is a Rule of practise hardened into a Rule of Law and legal precedent that all the matters which have been filed during the vacation should be decided before the vacation ends. Of course a discretion has been given to the District Judge to make necessary arrangement for disposal of such urgent Civil works. A reasonable approach has to be taken for the purpose of judging as to whether a particular matter is urgent or otherwise and for that purpose the concerned Judge has to adopt third party dispassionate and objective approach. Of course a discretion has been given to the District Judge to make necessary arrangement for disposal of such urgent Civil works. A reasonable approach has to be taken for the purpose of judging as to whether a particular matter is urgent or otherwise and for that purpose the concerned Judge has to adopt third party dispassionate and objective approach. In the present case exhibition of 'bewi No. 1' was either fetching a significant profit or if not permitted to exhibit was likely to cause significant loss to the petitioner who is in possession of prima facie right of exhibiting it in his Talkies, namely "sapna-Sangeeta" and in the whole Cine Circuit of C. P. When the petitioner filed a suit for the purpose of seeking an injunction against all the concerned persons prohibiting them to exhibit the said Film in any manner publicly, it was the duty of the learned Judge to keep it in mind as to what was the possibility of profit or loss which was likely to be caused to the petitioner on account of unwarranted, unauthorised interference in his right of exhibition of that film, in cine circuit of C. P. Every interference in such right was likely to cause huge loss to the petitioner. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the District Judge, Indore to ask the petitioner to file the said suit after the vacation and to press his application for injunction, as interim relief, after vacation. ( 4 ) THERE may be some reasons which may not permit a Subordinate Court to hear the matter during vacation, but he should mention it in his order, e. g. those grounds can be indicated like coming to a conclusion that- (1) there is no urgency, (2) no possibility of huge losses, (3) non-availability of time to dispose of such urgent matters which has been filed during the vacation. While coming to a conclusion whether a particular matter is urgent or otherwise some reasons have to be indicated and for that purpose there has to be a prima facie valuation or assessment of the loss to be occasioned to such petitioner or plaintiff who has been asked to come back to the Court after the vacation is over. While coming to a conclusion whether a particular matter is urgent or otherwise some reasons have to be indicated and for that purpose there has to be a prima facie valuation or assessment of the loss to be occasioned to such petitioner or plaintiff who has been asked to come back to the Court after the vacation is over. When there is possibility of eclipse tothe fundamental right of Citizen or legal right of a Citizen, the Court has to make itself available for the purpose of dealing with such urgent prayers made by litigants in even civil matters. After all the Courts are meant for administration of justice and a person who comes to the Court for seeking urgent relief for redressing his possible injury in legal rights, has not to be turned down by asking him to come after the vacation. If it was so what was the necessity of providing sub-section (4) to S. 21 of the Act? Courts are for the purpose of protecting the fundamental and legal rights of every Citizen and returning such persons by asking him to come to the Court after vacation would be, according to me, causing injury or possible injury to him. It is hereby made clear that by this order this Court is not blaming the District Judge, Indore. This Court found it necessary to give some guidelines for the purpose avoiding possibility of such rejections, which is necessary in the interest of justice and for the purpose of maintaining clean, continuous and benevolent stream of administration of justice. ( 5 ) THUS, this petition is hereby allowed. The District Judge, Indore is hereby directed to accept the plaint as well as injunction application and to decide it on merit in accordance with law before the vacation gets over. No order as to costs. The petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the District Judge, Indore within three days. CC in three days on payment. Petition allowed. .