JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal arises out of order passed by the trial court under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, whereby the order to maintain status quo has been passed. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that while deciding the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the court has not considered the three basic ingredients for passing of injunction i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and has casually passed the order for the reason that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff. It was submitted that the plaintiff-respondent has no case at all even the suit filed by him was not maintainable and therefore, the appeal be allowed and his application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC be dismissed. In alternative, it was submitted that as the trial court has failed to record any finding on the three ingredients, the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration within a specific time frame. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial court. It was submitted that once the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff, the appellants cannot be permitted to deal with the property and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order as passed by the trial court is clearly contrary to the series of judgments laying down the parameters for consideration of application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC and it was incumbent of the trial court to record its findings on the three aspects i.e. primafacie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury before passing the impugned order. 5. In view of the fact that no findings have been recorded by the trial court on the said three ingredients, it would be just and proper that the matter is remanded back to the trial court to first consider the application on three aspects and pass the order thereon and it would not be appropriate to deal with the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC independently before this Court and pass the order thereon. 6. 6. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.7.2012 passed by the trial court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the application afresh keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore within a period of two months from today. The interim order of status quo passed by the trial court on 16.7.2012 would continue till the disposal of the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the trial court. The suit itself may be heard expeditiously.The record of the trial court be sent back immediately.Appeal Allowed. *******