JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri Abhinandan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. Facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Original Suit No. 1069 of 2010, (Smt. Guddi Devi Versus Pappu Sharma and Others) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, District Lucknow. 2. In the said suit, he moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., came up for consideration before the Court below on 25.11.2010 and the trial court after going through the document on record had came to the conclusion that before granting the temporary injunction,it is expedient in the interest of justice to hear the defendant in the suit accordingly, notices have been issued to the respondents to file their objections and the date fixed in the matter as 09.12.2010 and next date is fixed is 24.12.2010. 3. Order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the trial court/opposite party no.1 is under challenged. On the ground that the same is contrary to the facts of the case and on the basis of the documents on record trial court should have granted injunction in favour of plaintiff/petitioner. 4. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that while considering the petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction, the court below had came to the conclusion that before granting the ex parte injunction order, notice may be issued to the defendant to hear his version. 5. In view of the above said factual background the question which immediately arises is that what principles should be followed by the Courts in the matter of grant of an ad-interim injunction. 6. The answer is contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. 5. In view of the above said factual background the question which immediately arises is that what principles should be followed by the Courts in the matter of grant of an ad-interim injunction. 6. The answer is contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3SCC 161, a Bench of three Judges of Apex Court has held that:- "It has been pointed out repeatedly that a party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right or course, grant of injunction is within the discretion of the court and such discretion is not to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary injection is, thus, to maintain the status quo. The Court grants such relief according to the legal principles- ex debito justitiae. Before any such order is passed the court must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and that the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him." 7. In the case of Dalpat Kumar V. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719 a Bench of two Judge of the Apex Court held that the phrases "Prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss" are not rhetoric phrases for incantation but words of width and elasticity, intended to meet myriad situations presented by men's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances and should always be hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injury to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. 8. The court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injury to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. 8. Further in Woodroffe's Law Relating to Injunctions, 2nd revised and enlarged Edn., 1992, at page 56 in para 30.01, it is stated that :- "An injunction will only be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation (that is a duty enforceable by law ) existing in favour of the applicant who must have personal interest in the matter. In the first place, therefore, an interference by injunction is founded on the existence of a legal right, an applicant must be able to show a fair prima facie case in support of the title which he asserts." 9. In the Law Quarterly Review Vol. 109, page 432 ( at p. 446), A.A.S. Zuckerman under the title "Mareva Injunctions and Security for Judgment in a Framework of Interlocutory Remedies" has stated:- "The Court considering an application for an interlocutory injunction has four factors to consider; first, whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; secondly, whether this harm outweighs any irreparable harm that the defendant would suffer from an injunction; thirdly, the parties' relative prospects of success on the merits; fourthly, any public interest involved in the decision. The central objective of interlocutory injunctions should therefore be seen as reducing the risk that rights will be irreparably harmed during the inevitable delay of litigation." 10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 11. However, the trial court/Civil Judge(Junior Division), Lucknow shall make all endeavor to decide the mater in respect to the grant of temporary injunction at an early date after hearing the learned counsel for the parties there in accordance with law.