( 1 ) THE impugned order of ad interim ex parte injunction has been assailed by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the appellants, on more grounds than one, but none appears to be of that substance to warrant our intervention in this appeal.

( 2 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury has firstly submitted that under the provisions of R. 3 of O. 39 of the Civil P. C. as amended by the Amendment Act of 1976, the Court can grant an injunction ex parte before serving notice on the opposite party only when it is satisfied that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay in serving such notice and, while granting such injunction ex parte, the court, "shall record the reasons for its opinion" that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by such delay. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has accordingly urged that the impugned order of ex parte injunction is bad as no such opinion or any reason therefor has been recorded by the trial Judge. It is true that the relevant Proviso to R. 3, as inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976, mandates recording of such reasons and that for good reasons. Firstly, such recording of reasons would, to borrow from the old Privy Co