The trial court must record the reasons for issuing an ex parte temporary injunction as required by O. 39, R. 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application seeks to challenge the order of the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 450 of 1981, whereby the order of ad interim injunction passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore, against the opposite party was set aside. The facts leading on to the application are as under.

( 2 ) IN a suit for eviction of the petitioner by the opposite party, the petitioner moved an application for temporary injunction restraining the opposite party, his men and agents from interfering with the supply of electricity to the suit premises or preventing the petitioner's access to the electric meter box and the main switch for effecting repair and/or restoring electricity, by erecting a partition wall.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif, on the same day, passed an ex parte order directing the opposite party to maintain status quo with respect to the electric meter and the main switch of the suit premises till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. Against the said order the opposite party took an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore who not only set aside the impugned order of the learned Munsif but also rejected the petitioner's application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has moved this court in revision and obtained the present Rule.

( 4 ) ON a perusal of the impugned judgement it appears that the appeal was allowed primarily on two grounds, namely (i) the ex parte order was passed by the learned Munsif during the subsistence of an order of this court passed in connection with another matter staying all further proceedings in the said suit and (ii) the ex parte order was made without notice to the plaintiff and without recording the reason as required by the Proviso to O. 39, R. 3, Civil P. C. that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay in giving notice of the application to the opposite party.

( 5 ) MR. Dasgupta, appearing in support of the rule, assails both the grounds as wholly untenable and contends that the learned Judge fell into a serious error in rejecting the application for temporary injunction cm merits although, it was still pending before the learned Munsif for disposal.

( 6 ) MR. Dasgutua has cited before me the Division Bench decision of the Madhya pradesh High Court in the case of Madanlal v. Kamlesh, reported in AIR 1975 Madh Pra 132 to show that the first ground for allowing the application was absolutely misconceived.

( 7 ) IN the case under reference, the defence against delivery of possession in a suit for eviction was struck out by the trial court and the order was challenged before the High Court in revision whereupon the High Court passed an order staying all further proceedings before the trial court. During the pendency of the Civil revision case, the landlady moved an application before the trial court under O. 38, R. 5, Civil P. C. for attachment before judgement and the trial court passed a conditional order which was subsequently confirmed by it. The question that arose before the Division Bench on a reference by a Single Bench was whether the trial court was competent to pass an order of attachment before judgement during the subsistence of the stay order passed by the High Court.

( 8 ) THEIR Lordships held, after an elaborate discussion, that the subsistence of a stay order passed by this High Court does not preclude the trial court from entertaining applications of an urgent nature e. g. application for temporary injunction, application for appointment of Receiver, application for attachment before judgement and the like, although the trial court will have no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the suit on merits.

( 9 ) HAVING gone through the judgement, I respectfully agree with the view taken by their Lordships and hold that notwithstanding the stay order passed by t