V. S. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration that it is entitled to put up a cooling tower on the roof of the third floor of the defendant s building and for a mandatory injunction against the defendant to allow the plaintiff and its workmen to go to the roof and construct a cooling tower and maintain it and also a permanent injunction that the defendant is not to interfere with the working of the cooling tower after its construction by the plaintiff. On 8-3-1978 the suit was filed along with I. A. 972 of 1978 for grant of interim injunction without issue of notice to the defendant under order 39 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the principal part of which is as follows :

"the Court shall in, all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting aninjunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given, to the opposite party. "an ex parte interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff on the same date ordering the defendant to allow the plaintiff to construct the cooling tower. Notice of the application was issued for 12th April, 1978, but the defendant appeared on 10-3-1978 and filed IAs 1049 and 1050 of 1978 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 for setting aside the ex parte injunction. The defendant further filed IA 1329 of 1978 for protection of his interest against the action of the plaintiff while the plaintiff filed IA 1330 of 1978 for clarification, of the order of ex parte temporary injunction already passed by the court. IA 1672 of 1978 was then filed by the defendant for restraining the plaintiff from doing its work of operating the cooling tower. The defendant further filed IA 2231 of 1978 for a temporary injunction against the plaintiff. It would be seen that the main application, IA 972 of 1978, on which the ex parte interim injunction has been issued is the root of the present dispute between the parties. The subsequent applications will stand or fall according as IA 972 of 1978 is allowed or dismissed. For, the ex parte order passed against the defendant on 8-3-1978 without n,oticc to it under Order XXXIX Rule 3 is not final. It has to be either confirmed or vacated after notice to the defendant.

( 2 ) RULE 3a of Order XXXIX requires the court to dispose of application for injunction within 30 days and is as follows :

"where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do. it shall record its reasons for such inability. "rule 4 of Order XXXIX enables the court to discharge or vary a temporary injunction previously granted by it and its material portion is as follows :

"any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order. "

( 3 ) AS a vacation Judge, I can entertain only urgent applications. IA 2231 of 1978 had to be entertained by me on 19-6-1978 only because of Rule 3a of Order XXXIX. Since the original IA 972 of 1978 has to be disposed of finally within, 30 days of the date of making the application, namely, 8-3-1978, and since the said application has not yet been finally disposed of after hearing the parties, I could not refuse to consider the question, whether IA 972 of 1978 should be confirmed or dismissed. But for this statutory duty placed upon me, I would not have liked to deal with this case in view of my great respect for my learned brother who is dealing with it on the original side. After notice of IA 2231 of 1978 was issued, Shri R. K. P. Shankardas appeared for the plaintiff. It was made clear to the party then, that because of Rule 3 A I was concerned only with the expeditious disposal of IA 972 of 1978 and that the arguments would be heard only on that application bec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document