( 1 ) OPPONENT No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 617/85 before the 4th Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) Jamnagar (Shri N. N. Naik) wherein it was contended that the Port Vadinar is administered by Kandla Port Trust and shipping activities are called on. Services of a tug or doing various shipping activities of off-shore oil terminate at Vadinar are required Quotations for hiring of such tug were invited and the plaintiff was given such contract which expired in June 1985. It is his contention that thereafter extension was given for a month During that time the Trust invited quotations from various parties by giving an advertisement The plaintiff had also given his tender amongst other parties. Ultimately the authorities have accepted the tender of the petitioner who is third party to the aforesaid snit. It is the contention of the plaintiff that without hearing him and giving any opportunity his contract was cancelled. He further alleged that some officers of the Trust had given promises than further contract would he given to the plaintiff only.

( 2 ) IN the said suit opponent No. 1 filed an application Exhibit-1 for interim injunction Contending that if injunction as prayed for is not granted he would suffer irreparable loss because he was having large establishments number of persons were employed by him and he would he required to pay wages provident fund and other things. He also contended that opponent No. 2 was likely to grant the contract in favour of some other person. That application was filed on 4-7-85.

( 3 ) ON the same day without complying with the provisions of 39 Rule 3 the learned Judge without bothering to apply his mind to the facts of the case stated by the plaintiff granted ad interim injunction as prayed for till 15-7-85. In paragraph-8 of the said application Exhibit it was prayed by the plaintiff that the defendant or their agents or servants may not grant contract to anybody else and that the plaintiff should not be restrained by them from doing The Contract work It was also prayed that he should be permitted to do the contract work as he was doing on the date of application. The said paragraph reads as under: this injunction was extended from time to time. Finally the third person i. e. the petitioner to whom the contract was given filed the aforesaid revision application against the impugned order. On 30/07/1985 the operation of the aforesaid order was stayed by me. Again at the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner the learned Judge was directed to pronounce the judgment on Exhibit 5 as it was mentioned before me that he had heard the arguments of both the parties. Finally by his judgment and order dated 12/08/1985 the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the opponent No. 1 and has vacated the ad interim injunction.

( 4 ) INSPITE of the fact that this Court had granted ad interim injunction staying the operation of the injunction order passed by him the learned Judge has stayed the operation of the order dated 12/08/1985 passed. by him till 30/08/1985 as stated by the learned advocate of the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jasmat Sangaji v. G. E. Board 23 G. L. R. 104 has held that ordinarily the trial Court is required to pass an order under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 or 2 biparte because of the mandate of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. Further in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Joint Civil Judge 26 G. L. R. 353 the Division Bench of this Court speaking through Chief Justice Poti as he then was has held that Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code is a very wholesome provision intended to achieve a laudable purpose and that 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 an injunction direct notice to be given to the opposite party. The Court has further administered a caution and observed that because of delay