Attachment before judgment and temporary injunction require proper evidence, a prima facie case, and limited appellate interference.

Applications for attachment before judgment and temporary injunction require proper affidavit support, a prima facie case, and material showing a real threat of alienation or obstruction; absent those elements, relief remains discretionary and appellate interference is limited to cases where discretion was not judicially exercised. The discussion also notes that an appeal may not merit summary disposal where arguable grounds exist on the evidence, valuation, or possession issues. The judges differed on whether the appeals should be admitted or dismissed, and the bench could not reach a majority view, so the matter was referred to a third judge under the Letters Patent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals against refusal of attachment before judgment and temporary injunction should be summarily dismissed or admitted for hearing, and whether the appellate court should interfere with the subordinate judge's exercise of discretion.

Analysis: One judge considered that the appeals disclosed arguable grounds for admission, including the adequacy of the affidavits, the material placed before the court, and the valuation and possession aspects. The other judge held that the applications failed for want of proper affidavit evidence, absence of a present threat of alienation or obstruction, failure to establish a prima facie case, and the discretionary nature of relief under the relevant procedural provisions. He further held that appellate interference was unwarranted unless the discretion had not been judicially exercised, and noted the delay and the practical futility of such appeals in this class of matters.

Conclusion: The judges were divided on the course to be taken, and no final majority view on admission or dismissal of the appeals was reached; the matter was referred for hearing by a third judge under the Letters Patent.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended in a procedural reference because the bench could not concur on the disposal of the appeals.

---