ORDER 24.1.2003. — Heard 2. This civil revision stands disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and pursuing the impugned judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur, passed on 14th August, 2002 in Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 2002. 3. It is not disputed at the Bar that petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 29 of 2002 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Kujang, in which opposite party is the defendant. An order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs in that suit. Defendant filed Misc. Case No. 43 of 2002 under Order 39, Rule 4, C.P.C. with the prayer to set aside or vary the ex parte order of status quo granted in that application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. On 26.4.2002 learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed that application and held that : “It is not felt appropriate to allow continuance of order of status quo any further passed vide order dated 27.3.2002. Hence, the petition filed by the opposite parties stands allowed and the order of status quo granted vide order dated 27.3.2002 stands vacated and the Misc. Case No. 43 of 2002 is dismissed on context against the opposite parties without cost.” As it appears, the above underlined portion is a mistaken expression in as much as the application was allowed for recall¬ing the order of status quo. 4. As against that, plaintiffs preferred Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 2002, and on 14.8.2002 the Appellate Court disposed of that appeal in a cryptic and non-speaking order. The relevant portion of that order reads are hereunder : “3. Perused the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kujanga passed on 26.4.2002 and found that he has passed appropriate order and there is nothing on record to differ from the finding. Hence it is ordered : Order The Misc. appeal No. 42/2002 has no merit and is dismissed on contest against the respondent but without cost.” 5. The above quoted order goes to show that neither the Appellate Court has applied its mind to the facts and circum¬stances nor deliberated on the contentions raised by the parties. He also did not give his reasoning for concurring with the find¬ing and order of the Civil Judge. He has disposed of the appeal according to his whim and caprice. The above quoted order goes to show that neither the Appellate Court has applied its mind to the facts and circum¬stances nor deliberated on the contentions raised by the parties. He also did not give his reasoning for concurring with the find¬ing and order of the Civil Judge. He has disposed of the appeal according to his whim and caprice. Therefore, this Court finds that the Appellate Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law. Under such circumstance the impugned order dated 14.8.2002 is set aside and learned Addl. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur is directed to hear the parties afresh in Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 2002 and to dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appellants, being the petitioners, undertake to file certified copy of this order in the lower Appellate Court by 11th February, 2003. Therefore, the appeal shall be disposed of within a month therefrom. Both the parties are directed appear in the Court below on 11th February, 2003 and in view of that nei¬ther of them shall be entitled to fresh or further notice for hearing of the appeal. Non appearance of any of the parties shall be regarded as such and the appeal be heard and disposed of in accordance with law. The Appellate Court shall bear in mind that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case or the impugned order of the trial Court. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed.