Anil Kumar, J.— Heard Shri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Initially, petitioners filed a suit bearing Regular Suit No.921/1998 before the 1st Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sultanpur for permanent injunction in which he has moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., rejected by order dated 8.8.2000 (Annexure No.1). Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal bearing Appeal No.52 of 2000, dismissed by order dated 6.12.2000 passed by VIth Addl. District Judge, Sultanpur. In view of the said facts, the present writ petition has been filed before this court. On 2.3.2001, this court has passed an interim order, the relevant portion is reproduced herein below:- "In the circumstances, it is provided that till the next date of listing both the parties shall maintain status quo over the property in dispute." 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 debito justitiae. 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." 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. 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." 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." Thus, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration, on the subject in issue under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC in respect of grant of injunction as well as interim order dated 2.3.2001 passed by this Court, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to consider and decide the Regular Suit No.921/1998, if the same is not decided till date, then within a period of one year from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order thereafter. For a period of one year or till the decision is taken by the trial court, whichever is earlier, parties are directed to maintain status quo from the order dated 2.3.2001 passed by this Court. _____________