JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-defendant has laid this appeal against the impugned order dated 12.2.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh, whereby the application of the respondent-plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was allowed. 2. While granting the temporary injunction, learned Court below has restrained the present appellant-defendant from alienating property and further from taking any steps for conversion of the user of land and to maintain status quo. The main suit was preferred by the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of contract against the appellant and other respondents. 3. Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has straneously urged that the learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, has not recorded any finding on the two ingredients for granting of temporary injunction namely; Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss. According to Mr. S.L. Jain, the order impugned on both the issues is absolutely vague and cryptic. 4. Assailing the finding of the learned Court below on the first issue, namely prima facie case, Mr. S.L.Jain has argued that the learned Court below has not examined the matter in right perspective, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff stoutly defending the order passed by the learned Court below has urged that the order impugned is just looking to the nature of the suit, which is for Specific Performance of the Contract. Mr. A.K. Jain further submits that in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract, the property has to be preserved as it is, so that there may not be further complications in the event of alienation of the property or its further development. Mr. A.K. Jain has also argued that granting or refusing the temporary injunction is within well discretion of the trial court, and normally the discretion exercised by the trial court is not required to be -3- interfered with by the Appellate Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. On examining the impugned order, in my considered opinion, the learned Court below has not recorded any finding worth the name on the issues relating to the Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. On examining the impugned order, in my considered opinion, the learned Court below has not recorded any finding worth the name on the issues relating to the Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss. Granting temporary injunction is of course within the discretion of the trial court, but the said discretion is to be exercised judiciously by prima facie examining the matter and recording the satisfaction, that it is necessary and expedient to grant temporary injunction. There is no quarrel that for granting temporary injunction, satisfaction of three ingredients namely; Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Loss and Balance of Convenience is essential and the Court while considering these aspects is also obliged to record definite finding on each issue. As the finding on two important issues; namely Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss are vague and cryptic and bereft of material particulars required under the law, I feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order and in my opinion the same cannot be sustained. 8. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the order impugned passed by the learned Court below is set -4- aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for deciding the application for temporary injunction afresh, strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 27.9.2013. Till 27.9.2013, the parties shall maintain the status quo.Appeal Allowed. *******