( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench.

( 2 ) THE necessary and material facts are, briefly, these: Respondent 1 was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 442 of 1980, on the file of the Munsiff, Udupi. Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 were defendants 2,1, 3 and 4 respectively therein. In that suit, the plaintiff, inter alia, sought a permanent injunction to restrtain defendants 3 and 4 from granting an "exhibition Certificate" respecting the motion picture "ganda- bherunda" on the allegations that defendant No. 1 represented to the plaintiff that he (deft~l) had acquired the exclusive right to exhibit than film I'gandabherunda" in Dharwar district by virtue of the agreement dated 15. 1. 79 executed in his favour by defendant-2 and one Vajramuni; that the plaintiff, on the strength of that representation, entered into an agreement dated 5. 9. 80 with defendant 2 whereunder defendant-1 had to deliver to the plaintiff by 15. 12. 80 prints of the said film enabling the latter to exhibit the same in Dharwar district: and that since the plaintiff, subsequently, learnt of the advertisements in newspapers that a certain m. J. M. Productions and Parijatha movies had asserted their exclusive distribution rights of the said film, the present suit for enforcement of the agreement in his favour had to be instituted. The plaintiff, however, -did not implead either the said "m. J. M productions" or "parijatha Movies as defendants in the suit. Instead, he impleaded the Regional Censor Officer, madras, and the officer-in-charge of central Board of Films Censors, Bombay, as defendants 3 and 4.

( 3 ) IN the suit, the plaintiff made an application under Rules 1 and 2 of order 39 read with S. 151 of CPC oi 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code') seeking an interlocutory injunction in terms following:"restraining opponents 1 and 2 (Defendants 3 and 4) from receiving any application from anybody and processing, screening, sanctioning and granting any Censorship Certificate to the film "gandabherunda" in kannada language and grant exparte order to the same effect pending disposal of this I. A. "on that application, the learned munsiff made an interim exparte order of injunction.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS (who were not parties to the suit and the application) took up the interim order in appeal before the civil judge, Udupi, invoking Rule,1 (r) of Ordef 43 of the code. In that appeal, the plaintiff (respondent-1) raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of an appeal from an exparte interim order under Rule 1 or 2 of Or. 39. The learned civil judge overruled that objection as to maintainability and dismissed the appeal on merits. Petitioners, therefore, have come up in revision.

( 5 ) AT the hearing of the revision before Puttaswamy, J. , a contention was taken by the plaintiff respondent-1 that petitioner's appeal before the learned civil judge was itself no;t main- tainble and that accordingly the revision wa,s also not maintainable. In support of that contention reliance was placed on the ruling of this court in M, G. Pai v. Canara Bank (ILR 1980 (1) Kar. 256.) and that of a Division Bench decision of the madras High Court in Abdul Shukoor sahib v. Umachander (AIR 1976 Mad. 350 ). Petitioners, however, urged the maintainability of such an appeal relying upon rulings of this court in keshava Chand Gopalachand Gujjar v. Nigappa Pandappa Kolalar ( (1969) 2 Mys. LJ. 525), Bhima ningappa Khot v. Ratnabhai (CRP 3056j78 dt. 6. 2. 79) and mahilasamaja v. Varija Aithal (CRP 2705178 dt. 5. 2. 80 ). Puttaswamy. J. adverting to the need to refer the matter to a Division bench, said:"5. As I apprehend, the first and 'the foremost question that required to be decided is whether an appeal lies against an ex-parte order of temporary injunction under order order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. A clear guidance on this question has to be found for the guidance of this court as also the guidance of the subordinate cour