Appellant, President Judge Forrest Schaeffer of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, appeals the denial of his request for injunctive relief against the Berks County Recorder of Deeds, Linda Frey. Judge Schaeffer sought to prohibit any further debinding or cutting of the Berks County deed books as part of a county contract to reproduce the deed books onto microfilm. Because we find appellant has not met the standards required in order to be awarded injunctive relief, we affirm the trial court’s order.
The relevant facts, which are generally undisputed, are as follows. Berks County entered into a contract in December 1986 to have the county deed books reproduced onto microfilm.1 Appellee, the Berks County Recorder of Deeds, a duly elected county officer, was named as Berks County’s agent for the contract and as the contract supervisor. In *563osier to accomodate tina microfilming process, some of the deed book» hare her®, debcund2 AImoist three years after the initiation of the contixct, and after approximately 1200 of total 1016 deetf books had been microfilmed, appellant, Sim spimie% entered a temporary rektrainfng order (“TEG”) prohibiting the Beeoiihv of Deeds from farther cutting of breaking of bindings of the deed books. The temporary restraining order rem,tuned hi effect for thirty days. After the lapse of the TEG, Judge Schaeffer filed the subject equity action requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin any continuation of the debinding, break-lug, cutting, or removing- of pages from the Berks County deed boefe without the oppress aiqorovai of the court of common pleas.
As part of the instituted equity action, an evidentiary hearing war. held before a judge.3 Testimony was presented by appellee linda Drey, appellant Judge Schaeffer, William Campbell, the Berk» County Controller, and Frank Johns, the Berks County District Court Administrator. As a result of the hearing, the lower court determined (1) the Berks* County microfilming contract was properly authorized by law, 65 P.A § 6*8.1; (2) appellee had acted in accordance with the Jaw; (8) there w«g no destruction of the deed records that are within the responsibility of appellee; and (4) appellant had failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. Therefore, the court denied: Judge Schaefferis request for injunctive relief. This timeiy appeal followed.4
*564Appellant raises two specific issues for our review. First, Judge Schaeffer contends he has been irreparably harmed by the debinding of the deed books, because the debinding precludes him from exercising the judicial discretion granted pursuant to 16 Pa.S.A. § 9872. Second, he argues that he has been irreparably harmed by the debinding of the deed books, because the books are within the responsibility and protection of the court; therefore, the debinding of the books without the knowledge of the court erodes and undermines public confidence in the court.5
Our scope of review of a trial court’s grant or denial of injunctive relief is limited. Crozer Chester Medical Center v. May, 352 Pa.Super. 51, 55, 506 A.2d 1377, 1379 (1986), appeal denied, (Pa., Dec. 10, 1986); Buttonwood Farms, Inc. v. Carson, 329 Pa.Super. 312, 315, 478 A.2d 484, 485 (1984). On appeal, this court “is restricted to whether there were any apparently reasonable ground[s] for the action taken by the court below.” Beck Computing Serv. v. Anderson, 362 Pa.Super. 505, 508, 524 A.2d 990, 991 (1987); Crozer Chester, 352 Pa.Super. at 56, 506 A.2d at *5651379; Ogontz Controls v. Pirkle, 346 Pa.Super. 253, 256, 499 A.2d 593, 595 (1985). Moreover, unless the record shows that the trial court’s ruling was palpably erroneous, a misapplication of law, or a manifest abuse of discretion, this court will affirm the lower court’s decision. Crozer Chester, 352 Pa.Super. at 55-58, 506 A.2d at 1379-80; Buttonwood Farms, 329 Pa.Super. at 315, 478 A.2d at 485. With this standard of review as a foundation, we have reviewed appellant’s arguments.
Injunctive relief, in particular a preliminary injunction, is “considered an extraordinary remedy and may only be granted if the plaintiff has established a clear right to the relief sought.” Soja v. Factoryville Sportsmen’s Club, 361 Pa.Super. 473, 477, 522 A.2d 1129, 1131 (1987). In Pennsylvania, a preliminary injunction will be granted only where a party can demonstrate certain prerequisites. There must exist (1) a threat of immediate and irreparable harm, that cannot be remedied by damages; (2) the injury that would result by denying the injunction must be greater than the injury by granting the equitable relief; and (3) the grant of the injunction must properly restore the parties to the situation as it existed prior to the alleged wrongful conduct. Ogontz Controls Co. v. Pirkle, 346 Pa.Super. at 256, 499 A.2d at 595 (1985) (quoting Albee Homes, Inc. v. Caddie Homes, Inc., 417 Pa. 177, 181, 207 A.2d 768, 770 (1965)). Underlying these three requirements, a court, sitting in equity, will not grant an injunction unless the conduct sought to be enjoined is actionable and an injunction can, in fact, restrict the conduct. Beck Computing Services Inc. v. Anderson, 362 Pa.Super. at 507-10, 524 A.2d at 991-92 (1987); Ogontz Controls, 346 Pa.Super. at 256, 499 A.2d at 595.
Appellant’s request for injunctive relief is primarily based on 16 P.S. § 9872, a statute originally enacted in 1827 and later repealed, except as it relates to the recorder of deeds.6 Section 9872 provides in relevant part:
*566At least once in each and every year, * * * it shall be the duty of each of the aforesaid ... recorders of deeds, ... in the several counties of this commonwealth, to submit the books of records belonging to their several offices to the inspection of the judges of the court of common pleas of the proper county; and it shall be the duty of the said court to order and direct such of the said books, as in their opinion may require it, to be bound anew; and also, in all cases where the same may be wanting, to order and direct full and complete indexes of the matters contained in said books to be made and prepared, within such time as the said court may think reasonable.
16 P.S. § 9872 (1827), repealed in part by 42 P.S. § 20002(a)[108] (1978). Appellant contends the Berks County contract violates section 9872 and thereby irreparably harms the court of common pleas. The harm to the court is, as argued by appellant, because section 9872 “places the responsibility for the physical integrity of deed books within the discretionary power of the Court of Common Pleas — not with the Recorder of Deeds.” Brief of Appellant, at 10 (emphasis in the original). Judge Schaeffer argues that the Berks County microfilming contract and the resulting debinding of the deed books irreparably thwarts his statutory duty to inspect and, if required, to order rebinding of the books. As presented by appellant, because the deed books are debound, they are no longer “books” which can be inspected by the court. Moreover, appellant contends that because section 9872 accords him the responsibility for the safeguarding of the deed books, the debinding of the books as part of the Berks County contract, without his approval, irreparably diminishes and erodes the public confidence in the court.7 We disagree.
*567We conclude Judge Schaeffer’s argument is without support because the court of common pleas’ statutory authority over the recorder of deeds and the deed records in the recorder’s custody is limited. Moreover, as determined by the lower court, there has been no demonstration of a destruction of public deed records held by the recorder of deeds. Because the issues in this appeal involve statutes and a county office that began with the creation of our commonwealth, we must, at least briefly, return to the constitutional and statutory language initially creating the position of, and the duties of, the recorder of deeds.
The individual holding the office of recorder of deeds is constitutionally recognized as being a county officer. Pa. Const, art. 9, § 4. The recorder of deeds is elected at municipal elections and holds his or her office for four years. Id. Significantly, this court has specifically stated that the recorder of deeds is not a judicial officer.8 Custer v. Glessner, 68 Pa.Super. 60, 61 (1917) (the recorder of deeds “is, in no accurate use of language, an officer of the court”).
The primary duty of the recorder of deeds is to serve the public by receiving and duly recording any recordable instruments so as to serve the future necessities of the law. 16 P.S. § 9701 (1715), repealed where inconsistent with Act of Aug. 4, 1955, P.L. 308, § 3; 76 C.J.S. Registers of Deeds §§ 1, 10(b) (1952) (stating the recorder’s duty “is to record deeds, mortgages, and other instruments affecting realty in the official books provided and kept for such purpose”). As the custodian of the recording books, or deed records, the recorder of deeds “is obligated to protect *568the public ... in preserving the integrity of the official records of his [or her] office.” 76 C.J.S. Registers of Deeds § 10(b). In 1775, the legislature of Pennsylvania first described the duty of the recorder of deeds. As originally enacted, the recorders of deeds “shall keep a fair book, in which he [or she] shall immediately make an entry of every deed or writing brought into his [or her] office to be recorded.” 16 P.S. § 9731 (1775), repealed where inconsistent with Act of Aug. 4, 1955, P.L. 303, § 3.
Our research shows that not only is the recorder of deeds not an officer of the court, but the records held by the recorder of deeds are not court .records. As noted by this court in Custer, “the records which, by law, [the recorder of deeds] is required to safely keep, [are not] the records of the judgments or decrees of the court____ [t]hey are the history of the transactions of the people of the county affecting the titles to land.” 68 Pa.Super. at 61.
We conclude the recorder of deeds, as the custodian of the county deed books, has the duty and responsibility to safeguard the deed records within her custody. Moreover, because the recorder of deeds is not an officer of the court, and the records within the custody of the recorder are not court records, any authority or control the court of common pleas may have over the recorder of deeds or the deed books retained by the recorder must be conferred by statute.
Because appellant primarily relies on 16 P.S. § 9872 in support of his argument that a continuation of the Berks County contract and debinding of the county deed books irreparably harms the court of common pleas, we turn to an analysis of that statute.9
*569We take it as uncontroverted that in 1827, deed books, qua books, were the primary means of permanently recording deeds and other instruments for future reference.10 The deed books held by the recorder of deeds were the method of systematically recording and permanently retaining an organized history of the real estate transactions within a county. The clear intent of section 9872 was to ensure the integrity of this organized system of recording deeds. Section 9872, as enacted in 1827, created a procedure to ensure that deed books that needed “to be bound anew” because of continued and extensive public use could be systematically rebound.11 Within this statutory procedure, the court of common pleas has the discretionary authority to determine if any deed books are in such a condition that they need to be rebound. By providing a procedure for checking the integrity of the deed books, and if necessary, ordering their repair, the legislature was ensuring that the public would have access to and could *570effectively use the deed records that are in the recorder’s office.
By enacting section 9872 and creating this procedure, we conclude the legislature intended to grant the court of common pleas a supervisory role with respect to the deed records. We find no language within 9872 to support a legislative intent to substitute the court of common pleas for the recorder of deeds as the custodian with the control and responsibility over the deed records.
We find further support for our conclusion by referring to an analogous statute and related case law concerning the indexing of public records. Section 1981 of Title 17, as enacted in 1891, provided
The court of common pleas of the proper county is hereby authorized and empowered whenever it shall appear advisable on inspection of the books of records and indices belonging to the several offices of ... recorder of deeds of such counties, by its order, to change and alter the mode of preparing and keeping said indices in one or more of said offices and to direct the mode in which said indices shall thereafter be prepared and kept.
17 P.S. § 1981 (1981), repealed by Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53, § 2(a)[770] (1978), and replaced by 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 323, 912, 4301 (1978). Our supreme court interpreted section 1981 in Nicely v. Raker, 250 Pa. 386, 95 A. 556 (1915). Nicely involved a dispute between the county controller, the court of common pleas, and the recorder of deeds. Pursuant to section 1981, the court of common pleas ordered the recorder of deeds to enter into a contract to change the mode of indexing deeds in the county. The recorder of deeds accordingly let such a contract. Id., 250 Pa. at 388-89, 95 A. at 556-57. Thereafter, the county controller refused to approve payment under the contract, contending “the court was without authority to direct a reindexing of the records by contract.” Id., 250 Pa. at 389, 95 A. at 557. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s judgment approving the contract, noting that section 1981 “vests in the court the sole power of changing or altering *571the mode of preparing and keeping the indexes in the several offices of record.” Id., 250 Pa. at 390, 95 A. at 557.
Two years later, this court in Custer v. Glessner, 68 Pa.Super. 60 (1915), also considered the legislative intent of section 1981 and further explained the practical application of the statute. In Custer, this court stated
[a]s we read the statute, it was clearly proper for the learned court below, after having determined there ought to be a change in the method of keeping the records referred to in the statute, to enter an order or decree requiring the same should be done and directing the manner in which the indices were thereafter to be kept. With the making of that order, the power conferred upon the court by the statute would apparently end.... It was not the purpose of the legislature, as expressed in the language of the act, to take away from the recorder of deeds, for instance, the custody of the records, for the security of which he was responsible by law.
Id., 68 Pa.Superior Ct. at 62 (emphasis added). As interpreted by this court, the authority and control extended by section 1981 to the court of common pleas was limited to that specifically described in the statute, that is, to order the change and alteration of the mode of preparing and keeping deed indices. Upon the entry of an order pursuant to section 1981, the court’s power was thereafter limited to its supervisory role. Section 1981 did not grant the court of common pleas broad custodial powers or control of the records, nor did the legislature intend to restrict or amend the recorder of deeds’ authority or responsibility over the deed records in his or her custody.
Section 9872, as relied on by appellant, is a similar grant of limited statutory power to the court of common pleas. As provided by section 9872, the court of common pleas has the discretionary authority to order the rebinding of the deed books that need to be bound anew. However, section 9872 does not grant the court the custody and responsibility for the deed books. Likewise, section 9872 does not grant the court the power to prohibit the lawful *572microfilming of deed books. Pursuant to section 9872, the court of common pleas has merely been given the power to order the binding anew of deed books that are in need of rebinding. We find no language in section 9872 suggesting that the legislature intended “to take away from the recorder of deeds, ... the custody of the records.” Custer, 68 Pa.Super. at 62.
Although we conclude section 9872 does not accord the court of common pleas broad custodial powers over the recorder of deed’s records, we emphasize that this holding is “not to be understood [to say] that the court is without power in any event to supervise a contract made by the proper officer if it should exhibit an intent to waste or squander the public money.” Custer, 68 Pa.Super. at 63 (emphasis added). Moreover, we emphasize that the court of common pleas is clearly not without power to enjoin an officer who is improperly restricting access to public records,12 or who is improperly destroying public records.13 Id.; McCommon v. Spong, 10 Sad. at —, 14 A. 260, 263 (1888).
Appellant cites McCommon v. Spong, 10 Sad. 453, 14 A. 260 (1888), in support of his argument that the court of common pleas has the statutory responsibility for the deed books. In McCommon, the court addressed the issue of whether the incumbent recorder of wills had the authority to rescind a contract entered into by order of the court of *573common pleas pursuant to section 9872.14 Id. at —, 14 A. at 260-61. The court of common pleas, in response to a petition from the bar, ordered the creation of indices for the records held by the recorder of wills. The recorder of wills, Spong, was chosen to undertake such a task, and he began the work. At the next general election, a new recorder of wills, McCommon, was elected, who then refused to permit Spong to continue with the indexing contract. Id. at —, 14 A. at 261. McCommon argued that he was entitled to any profits ascribable to the office of the recorder of wills, and therefore, the indexing contract should be given to him. The trial court, and the supreme court on appeal, upheld the original contract with Spong. Id. at —, 14 A. at 262.
The trial court’s opinion, adopted by the supreme court, explained that the enactment of section 9872 “imposed upon the courts the power and duty of directing the making of full and complete indexes, [and the legislature] certainly contemplated that [the courts] should have the power to intrust the labor to competent persons.... It could not have been intended by the legislature that the courts were compelled to commit it only to the person who happened to be the incumbent in the office.” McCommon, 10 Sad. at ——, 14 A. at 261. We do not find McCommon to be apposite.
The court in McCommon was specifically addressing a dispute between the recorder of wills and the former recorder of wills who was working under a court order to create new indices for the will record books. The former recorder, Spong, was working to create new record indices, under a court order. The court of common pleas had the authority, pursuant to section 9872, to order the creation of the new indices. Once ordered and contracted, it was not within a later elected recorder of wills’ authority to modify the court order.
*574McCommon is inapposite to the case at bar. The instant case does not involve an order and an attempt to modify or alter it. More importantly, we do not read McCommon to hold that the court of common pleas, pursuant to section 9872, has the power and authority to prohibit the recorder of deeds from continuing a valid contract to reproduce the county deed books onto microfilm, where the microfilming process does not destroy the deed records.
Judge Schaeffer also contends the Berks County contract irreparably harms the court of common pleas by eroding and undermining public confidence in the court. As argued by appellant, under 16 P.S. § 9872 the court is statutorily granted the responsibility to protect the county deed books. Therefore, the debinding of the deed books, without the express approval or knowledge of the court, erodes public confidence in the power of the court. We find appellant’s argument to be completely without support. Not only has appellant presented no evidence in support of his erosion of public confidence argument, but, as we concluded above, there is no merit to his argument that the court of common pleas has, pursuant to section 9872, the custodial authority or responsibility over the deed records. We specifically have found that the recorder of deeds is the deed records custodian with the responsibility to protect and safeguard the deed records.
In his brief, appellant further argues the debinding of the deed books has irreparably destroyed the deed books and threatens to irreparably destroy the remaining deed books if the microfilming contract is permitted to continue. Appellant’s Brief, at 13-15. As argued by Judge Schaeffer, the debinding of the deed books for the microfilming process “destroys public records” because the deed books are not accessible as “books” after being debound. Id.
The trial court held that no evidence was presented establishing that the recorder of deeds, “or any one acting on her behalf,” was in any sense unlawfully destroying public records. Trial Court Opinion, at 24. Moreover, the court “specifically found from the evidence presented that *575there was nothing that could be construed as a cutting or destruction of any of the volumes contained in the [appellee’s] office.” Id. After carefully and thoroughly reviewing the record and all relevant statutory language, we agree with the lower court.
We note that no evidence was introduced that remotely suggests the deed records, or wording on the pages has been or will be destroyed, cut off, torn or mutilated. The only evidence presented was that the pages from the deed books were removed, by cutting or other means, from the binding, then photographed, placed loose back into the binding, and finally wrapped in brown paper. (N.T. 25-87). Without more, we can not conclude that the above debinding and microfilming process undertaken pursuant to a valid county contract, irreparably is destroying the Berks County deed books.15 We find that under the applicable law, the debinding of the Berks County deed books, pursuant to a proper lawful contract, to accommodate the microfilming process, does not constitute a destruction of the deed or public records.16
*576In summary, we conclude, that appellant has not established any form of immediate and irreparable harm caused by the Berks County microfilming contract. We find that the debinding of the county deed books as part of the lawful microfilming contract does not constitute a destruction of public records. Moreover, we find that the debinding process does not irreparably harm the court of common pleas by precluding the court from inspecting the deed books and ordering the binding anew of any books that, in the court’s opinion, need to be rebound. Finally, we conclude that the debinding of the Berks County deed books without the approval of the court of common pleas does not irreparably harm the court by eroding public confidence in the court.
The denial of injunctive relief is affirmed.
POPOVICH, J., files a dissenting opinion.