( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Raj Kumar Rudra, the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents/ defendants. The learned Counsel had pointed out that an order of Status quo was ordered without recording reasons. The learned counsel with all vehemence had submitted that the learned Senior Civil judge at Medak noticing that a caveat had been lodged by one defendant against other defendant, had erred in making an order of status quo, without ordering notice. The learned counsel also had placed reliance on c. Seethaiah v. Govt. Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel for the appellants while elaborating the submissions had pointed out that it is mandatory to record reasons while granting an ex parte order of status quo. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on M/s. Paro Food Products v. The hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and sewerage Board, Bacharaj Singhvi v. Hastimal kothari and Syed Shameer Makandar and others v. Syed Ahmed.

( 2 ) HEARD the counsel at length.

( 3 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filedunder Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as code in short), aggrieved by an order of Status quo dated 29-1-2003 made in I.