ORDER 27.2.2003 — Heard. This civil revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of both the parties. 2. This civil revision has been preferred as against the order dated 5.12.2002 passed by learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Bhubaneswar, in F.A.O. No. 101 of 2002. 3. Opposite party in this revision is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.141 of 2002 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divi¬sion), Bhubaneswar and petitioners in this revision are the defendants in that suit. Opposite party filed the aforesaid suit stating that he is a member of Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange Member¬ship Welfare Trust and the petitioners have passed an illegal order suspending his membership. He thus filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, the Opposite party filed Misc. Case No.189 of 2002 under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. for grant of interim injunction. As per order passed on 18.7.2002, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) refused to grant interim injunction. Opposite party preferred the afore¬said appeal, and learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge passed the impugned judgment only by setting aside the order passed by the Civil Judge and did not pass any consequential order except making an observation that suspension of the appellant from his membership is not proper. In that context the objection, which the petitioners have raised, is relating to non-availability of that interim relief in favour of the Opposite party. Petitioners also challenge to the maintainability of the suit. 4. It appears from the orders of the Courts below that while considering the question of grant or refusal of interim injunction, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) took into considera¬tion the required ingredients of law so also the pleadings of the parties, and after interpreting the same as per his wisdom and on the basis of certain citations referred to in that order, he disallowed the prayer for interim injunction. As against that, the lower appellate Court being posted with a senior ranked Judi¬cial Officer has failed to discharge the duty and responsibili¬ties of an Appellate Court and after superficially dealing with the issue, disposed of the appeal without delving deep into the matter by due consideration relevant facts and law. As against that, the lower appellate Court being posted with a senior ranked Judi¬cial Officer has failed to discharge the duty and responsibili¬ties of an Appellate Court and after superficially dealing with the issue, disposed of the appeal without delving deep into the matter by due consideration relevant facts and law. The Addl.District Judge has not considered the facts and circum¬stances involved in the case vis-a-vis the relevant provision of law, the findings recorded by learned Civil Judge, the citations relied on by that Court and how such findings are incorrect. Learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge only on the basis of whim and caprice. Such a conduct from a senior ranked judicial officer is not aspected . By making the aforesaid comment, this Court does not meant to say that learned Addl.District Judge should have confirmed to the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division). On the other hand, this Court intends to say that while consider¬ing the legality and correctness of the order impugned in his Court, he should have considered validity or invalidity of any finding recorded by the Civil Judge and the implications ap¬plicability or non-applicability of the citations referred to therein and thereafter he should have decided the case in accord¬ance with law. The appellate Court should have visualised that when the Civil Judge refused to grant temporary injunction, dismissal of that order does not operate as an order of injunc¬tion. If he intended to allow the prayer for temporary injunc¬tion, then the same should have been specifically stated by indicating as to whether he passed prohibitory or mandatory injunction, even temporarily. Since all that was required to be done by him has not been done, therefore, the parties agree that this matter should be remanded to the Court below for expeditious disposal within a targeted period. 5. In due consideration of the aforesaid contention and the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while setting aside the impugned order of the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, this Court directs the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge to hear and dispose of F.A.O. No.101 of 2002 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and accordingly the order of remand is passed. District Judge, this Court directs the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge to hear and dispose of F.A.O. No.101 of 2002 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and accordingly the order of remand is passed. Looking to the anxiety of both the parties for early disposal of the appeal, it is directed that both the parties shall appear before that Court on 13.3.2003. Failure to appear on that date shall not entitled either of the parties to fresh or further notice from that Court and the conse¬quences thereof shall follow. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file a certified copy of this order in that Court on that date. Therefore, the appeal be heard and dispose of within a period of four weeks from that date. 6. In course of hearing of this revision there are some suggestions from either quarter relating to a settlement that may be attempted to. If the parties shall succeed in that respect, then they may bring such fact to the notice of the Appellate Court for due consideration. 7. At the risk of repetition, this Court observes that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the claim of the plaintiff or the merit of the contention of the defendants which they have advanced in the Court below nor on the merit of the order which was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division). Therefore, the Appellate Court shall feel free to adjudicate the dispute but strictly in accordance with law. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed.