P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD, both the counsel. ( 2 ) THE unsuccessful respondents/defendants in I. A. No. 87 of 2002 in O. S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil judge, Srikakulam had preferred the present civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The respondent/ plaintiff filed the said application I. A. No. 87 of 2002 in O. S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge. Srikakulam under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure praying for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from meddling with the land by reducing its usage and utility by making pits and other excavations in the suit schedule land pending disposal of the suit. ( 3 ) BOTH the counsel had made elaborate submissions. The learned counsel for the appellants would maintain that the learned Additional senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam had not recorded any findings in detail relating to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss except observing so in the last portion of the order. The learned counsel also submitted that the subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land and because of granting temporary injunction the appellants are unable to proceed with the agricultural operations and they are not causing any damage to the property either by digging pits or otherwise. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondents had not placed any material to substantiate prima facie case and in the absence of any material, granting temporary injunction of this nature is bad in law. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff had submitted that the, very language of Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure is very clear, explicit and inasmuch as the damage is being caused to the subject matter of the suit, the court is definitely empowered to grant temporary injunction not to dig pits and not to cause any damage in the suit schedule land till the disposal of the main suit. The learned counsel also submitted that no prejudice is caused to the other side by such an order. The learned counsel also submitted that no prejudice is caused to the other side by such an order. The learned counsel also further submitted that absolutely the respondent/plaintiff has no objection if the appellants/defendants carry on their agricultural operations in the plaint schedule property and what all they are aggrieved of is changing the physical features by digging pits which will alter the nature of the land and which will also reduce the utility of the land. ( 5 ) THE respondent herein plaintiff in O. S. No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Additional senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 13-9-2000 executed by the appellants in his favour and sell the plaint schedule land. It is stated that the appellants herein with a view to cause wrongful loss to the respondent/plaintiff have been trying to spoil the plaint schedule land by digging huge pits to reduce its value and utility. The same had been specifically denied by the appellants in the counter-affidavit and they had taken a stand that a reply notice was issued for the notice issued by the respondent/plaintiff wherein it was mentioned that the respondent/plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract or to comply with the conditions specified in the agreement of sale aforesaid and hence inasmuch as the said agreement was cancelled, there is no question of executing any registered sale deed on the strength of such an agreement which is no longer in existence and which is not enforceable. It is not a dispute between the parties that the appellants continue to be in possession of the plaint schedule property. The main grievance of the respondent/plaintiff is that the appellants are trying to change the physical features of the agricultural land by digging pits. Except making these allegations, no other material was placed before the learned Additional Senior civil Judge, Srikakulam in this regard. However, the learned Judge observing that the respondent/plaintiff has got some interest over the plaint schedule land under the agreement of sale and if any damage is caused to the schedule land the respondent/plaintiff can seek protection of the Court relating to the subject matter to safeguard the same and observing so ultimately temporary injunction was granted. However, the learned Judge observing that the respondent/plaintiff has got some interest over the plaint schedule land under the agreement of sale and if any damage is caused to the schedule land the respondent/plaintiff can seek protection of the Court relating to the subject matter to safeguard the same and observing so ultimately temporary injunction was granted. It is pertinent to note that except the parties filing an application in respect of the temporary injunction and the counter affidavit denying the allegations, no other material had been placed before the learned Additional Senior civil Judge, Srikakulam to substantiate their respective contentions. It is needless to say that on such material, I do not think that the learned additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam had arrived at a correct conclusion while appreciating the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is a suit for specific performance and unless the respondent/ plaintiff obtains a decree on the strength of the agreement of sale till then, at the best, he is entitled to only a limited right of safeguarding the property in the event of, his ultimate success in the suit while appreciating the matter of this nature. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, 1 am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Senior Civil judge, Srikakulam should have appreciated the matter only when sufficient material is placed by the respective parties and not on such insufficient material. In view of the same, I am left with no other option except to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in I. A. No. 87 of 2002 in O. S. No. 4 of 2002 dated 6/11/ 2002. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam to give an opportunity to both the parties to place the necessary material for the purpose of deciding the matter afresh if they choose to do so and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.