( 1 ) IN this application filed by the respondents for vacation of the ex parte interim order of injunction issued against them, the two questions that have arisen for consideration are - (a) whether the ex parte interim order has automatically stood vacated on the ground of the application for vacation not having been disposed of within the period specified in Clause (3) of Article 226, and (b) whether on the facts acrd circumstances and the relevant law on the point, the order, if still in operation, should be discharged or otherwise altered, or, if the order is no longer in operation, a fresh interim order is warranted.

( 2 ) WHERE an interim order has been made after giving the party affected an opportunity of being heard, such an order isordinarilynot to be discharged or varied unless such discharge or variation has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship. But when such an interim order has been made ex parte without giving the party affected an opportunity of being heard, the aggrieved party is entitled to object to its continuance and to ask for its vacation or varia