( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from offering the seva puja or doing any duty of the shebaits of Sri Sri Iswar Satbhai Kalimatar Ashram. On the plaintiff's prayer, the learned Munsif passed an interim order for temporary injunction re-straining the defendant No. 1 in that respect. It was stated that the matter was urgent and hence interim order was passed. Against that order, by which the player for ad-interim in junction was allowed, an appeal was preferred. The same was dismissed and hence this revisional application.

( 2 ) MR. Das Gnpta has made a short submission. It has been contended that previously the law was the same in this respect because in urgent matters injunction could not be issued in the defendant's absence without strong and grave reasons. The case of R. H. Baddam v. Dhunput Singh in (1897) 1 Cal WN 429 at p. 431 has been cited to show that an injunction cannot be issued in the defendant's absence unless there are strong and grave reasons. This has since been clarified in Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A proviso has been added that where it is proposed to grant an in