Anil Kumar, J.:- Heard Sri K.S. Rastogi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of O.P. No. 1 and Sri AnuragSrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2. 2. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner are that petitioner taken a loan from State Bank of India, Branch Mohammadi District Kheri. In respect to the said matter, he filed a suit (Suit No. 208 of 2011) for permanent injunction as well as accountancy in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kheri. In the said suit, on 18.03.2011 an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC moved. 3. On the said application, O.P. No. 1 passed an order dated 18.03.2011 thereby issuing notices to defendants to file their objections on the ground that before granting ex-parte interim order defendants should be heard. Hence present writ petition filed with the following main prayer:- "(i) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. Party no. 1 to decide & dispose off the application for interim injunction dt. 18.03.2011 as contained in Annexure No. 2 forthwith within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. Party no. 2 & 3 not to realise the amount of loan as a arrear of land revenue." 4. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 5. From the perusal of the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by O.P. No. 1, it is clear that while considering the petitioner's application for grant of interim injunction, court below had came to conclusion that before granting ex parte injunction order, notice may be issued to the defendants to hear their version. 6. 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. The answer is contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. 6. 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. 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 debitojustitiae. 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. In Woodroffe's Law Relating to Injunctions, 2nd revised and enlarged Edn., 1992, at page 56 in para30.01, 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. In view of the abovesaid facts, the said prayer No. (ii) as made by petitioner cannot be granted in the instant matter. 11. However, so far as the relief No. (i) is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner has prayed that as the next date fixed for disposal of application for interim injunction before trial court is 18.05.2011, so trial court may be directed to dispose of the the same on the said date and also requests that till then petitioner shall not be arrested in the matter in question. 12. Sri AnuragSrivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondent as well as learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the abovesaid prayer. 13. 12. Sri AnuragSrivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondent as well as learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the abovesaid prayer. 13. For the foregoing reasons, O.P. No. 1 is directed to consider and dispose of application for grant of interim injunction moved by petitioner in Regular Suit No. 208 of 2011 on the next date fixed i.e. on 18.05.2011, if not possible on the said date then within ten days thereafter, after hearing counsel for parties on merit in accordance with law. 14. Till the disposal of application for interim injunction or till 30.05.2011 whichever is earlier, petitioner should not be arrested in the matter in question. 15. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit. 16. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.