JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. SJ Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent herein preferred Misc Arbitration Case No.118/2012 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While entertaining the petition, the following order dated 16.03.2012 was passed:- "This misc arbitration case is filed with a prayer for ad-interim injunction seeking to restrain the O/Ps from the deduction of liquidated damage, in Contract Agreement No.CE/CS-24/2010 Dtd.23-4-2010 as specifically indicated in the petition. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that he grant of ad-interim injunction is required till hearing the opposite parties and till final order is passed on the prayer of injunction. Considering the subject matter of the case, the status quo in respect of the subject matter of the case i.e. deduction of liquidated damages is directed to be maintained till the net date fixed, on which date, O/P may appear and the objection, if so advised and will participate in the hearing on the prayer on injunction made in the case. Issue notice to the O/Ps within 2 days. Fixed 25.04.2012 for S/R of notice, objection and hearing, if any." 3. The implication of the order dated 16.03.2012 is that an ad-interim injunction in the nature of a status-quo with regard to deduction of liquidated damages against the respondent was passed with a condition that the ad-interim injunction be maintained till the next date fixed with the understanding that after hearing the opposite parties therein i.e. the appellants herein and the objection if filed, final order as regards the ad-interim injunction would be passed. Accordingly, the next date was fixed on 25.04.2012. 4. But, however, without deciding on merit as regards the interim injunction that is required to be passed, the learned District Judge, Kamrup (Metro) by the order dated 16.05.2013 had disposed of the Misc Arbitration Case 118/2012 with a direction that the interim order dated 16.03.2012 would continue till completion of the arbitral proceeding. The order of 16.05.2013 is extracted as under:- "Heard both sides. It has been submitted that on the request made by the contractor, Railway Department has already appointed arbitrator to decide the disputes arising out of the Contract Agreement in question. The order of 16.05.2013 is extracted as under:- "Heard both sides. It has been submitted that on the request made by the contractor, Railway Department has already appointed arbitrator to decide the disputes arising out of the Contract Agreement in question. In view of this, the instant proceeding is disposed of with the direction that the interim order dated 16/03/2012 will continue till completion of the arbitral proceeding." 5. In our view, an interim order cannot be made absolute without passing an effective speaking order after hearing the parties. The order of 16.05.2013 without any reason and without giving a final consideration had made the interim order of 16.03.2012 absolute till completion of the arbitral proceeding. 6. Accordingly, the order of 16.05.2013 is set aside. The matter stands remanded back to the learned District Judge, Kamrup (Metro) for a final adjudication in the Misc Arbitration Case No.118/2012. 7. As agreed, the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kamrup (Metro) on 10.01.2020. With the above, the Arbitration Appeal stands disposed of.