P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals un der Order 43, Rule 1. Code of Civil Proce dure, are directed against the same order dated 16 10 2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior division), Bhubaneswar. in Misc Case No 470/ 2000, arising out of Title Suit No 521/2000 ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT no 1 has filed Titie Suit No 521 of 2000 for declaration that she is continuing as Reader in Oriya in Ekamma college. Bhubaneswar, and for damages and for permanent injunction restraining defendant no 3 from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff as a Reader in the said College during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application purporting to be under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure in the said application, the trial court after hearing both sides had passed an order restraining defendant no 3 opposite party no. 3, the Principal of Ekamra College, Bhubaneswar. from interfering in day-to-day functioning of the plaintiff as Reader in 0riya Department of ekamra College. Bhubaneswar. till disposal of the suit The said order is being challenged by the Pnncipal in Misc Appeal No 719/2000 arid by defendant no 4 opposite party no 4, who has been posted as a Lecturer in Oriya. in misc. Appeal No. 725/2000. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the counsels for parties and after perusing the lower court records including the orders passed by the trial court, I am convinced that the impugned order cannot be sustained. However, since in my opinion, the matter should be re-considered by the trial court, it is not desirable to express any opinions on many of the contentions raised in this Court leaving it open to the parties to raise those contentions before the trial court so that the trial court would be in a position to decide the matter afresh without being oppressed by any opinion of the higher Court. ( 4 ) A mere perusal of the impugned order indicates that the trial court has come to the conclusion regarding prima fade case in favour of plaintiff respondent no. 1 mainly on the basis of order passed in O. J. C. No. 6947/ 2000. I have perused the aforesaid order in o. J. C No 6947/2000. ( 4 ) A mere perusal of the impugned order indicates that the trial court has come to the conclusion regarding prima fade case in favour of plaintiff respondent no. 1 mainly on the basis of order passed in O. J. C. No. 6947/ 2000. I have perused the aforesaid order in o. J. C No 6947/2000. There is no specific direction in the said order which had been passed at the stage of admission directing the principal of the College to allow present plaintiff-respondent no. 1 to render service in the very same college; rather it was a direction to the D. P. I, to take appropriate decision in the matter It is nobody's case that the D. P. I, has thereafter passed any specific order directing that the plaintiff should be allowed to continue as a Reader in the very same College. The trial court has observed"no explanation is being furnished as to why those O. Ps. did not appear in o. J. C. No. 6947/2000. The contention now being agitated by O. P. Nos. 3 and 4 cannot take away the effect of the judgment of the Hon'ble Court passed in o. J. C. 6947/2000 The judgment of the Hon'ble Court is in force and the' parties are duty bound to take appropriate action in this matter. "as already indicated, there is no specific direction in the said order of the High Court. Moreover, the trial court was possibly unaware of the fact that the said order had been passed at the stage of admission when opposite parties 3 and 4 in the Misc. Case were neither noticed nor were represented through lawyer and as such, there was no occasion for them to be heard in the matter. Moreover, the trial court was possibly unaware of the fact that the said order had been passed at the stage of admission when opposite parties 3 and 4 in the Misc. Case were neither noticed nor were represented through lawyer and as such, there was no occasion for them to be heard in the matter. The conclusion of the trial court that there is a prima facie case being based on insufficient materials cannot be accepted and the matter is required to be re-considered by the trial court ( 5 ) LAW is well settled as has been observed by the trial court, that in order to pass an order of injunction, the Court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case; that irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if injunction is not granted ; and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff This position is clear in view of the decision of the supreme Court reported in Dalpat Kumar and another v Prahlad Singh and others In the present case, the trial court after coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case which is now found to be defective, has simply jumped to the conclusion that irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff and the balance of convenience was in her favour. The court is also required to address itself to the question as to whether there would be any irreparable loss and as to whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff even assuming that there is a prima facie case. ( 6 ) THE learned counsels appearing for the parties had advanced many other contentions. However, since I am inclined to remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, it is not necessary to notice the detailed arguments nor express any opinion thereon. ( 7 ) IN the result, both the appeals are allowed, the impugned order of injunction is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration. The matter should be reconsidered as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the L. C R The trial court should also consider the question of expeditious disposal of the main suit itself. The l. C. R. shall be sent back immediately. The matter should be reconsidered as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the L. C R The trial court should also consider the question of expeditious disposal of the main suit itself. The l. C. R. shall be sent back immediately. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. Matter remanded.