An order for injunction granted after giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party cannot be discharged, varied, or set-aside on the application of the party except where such discharge, variance, or cancellation is necessitated by the change in the circumstances or for the reason of hardship caused by it.

1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated July 29, 1992, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara, by which the learned Munsif recalled the order dated July 22, 1992, granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for the grant of temporary injunction-Summons in the suit as well as for the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code were issued to the defendant, which were duly served. The defendant did not appear on 22.7.1992. The learned trial Court, therefore, passed an order proceeding ex-parte against the defendant. The learned Munsif, also, decided the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant to demolish the stairs-case, latreen, bath-room, upper storey of the house and the balcony by themselves or through any other person. The defendants were further restrained from interfering in the peaceful use of the shop in question by the plaintiff. The defendant, therefore, moved two application-one for setting-aside the ex-parte order passed in the civil suit and another for the recalling of the order dated 22.7.1992, granting temporary injunction. The learned Munsif recalled the ex-parte order in the suit and allowed the defendant to contest the suit. The learned Munsif, also, recalled the order daed 22.7.92, granting temporary injunction. It is. against this order that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

3. Order 39 Rule 4 deals with the powers of the High Court to discharge, vary or set-aside the injunction may be discharged or varied or set-aside by the Court on an application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such an order,

4. Rule 4 Order 39 covers two types of cases where injunction passed by the Court may be discharged, varied or set-aside. First type of cases are such where a temporary injunction has been granted on the basis of an application supported by an affidavit and later on it was found that the plaintiff knowingly made a false and misleading statement in relation to the material particulars and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite parry. The second type of cases are such where the order for injunction has been passed after giving to the" party aggrieved an opportunity of being heard, but the setting aside of the order has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to the party aggrieved, who is applying for the setting-aside of the order. Proviso (2) to Rule 4ORDER39 never intended to set-at-naught the ordinary rule that when the injunction was granted after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the order becomes final. If the party served with the notice of the application for the grant of injunction fails to appear and contest the application and if in its absence the injunction has been granted then the party aggrieved has two remedies available to him against such order. He can file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) Civil Procedure Code against such order which became final. The aggrieved party, under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code can, also, apply for discharge, variance or setting-aside of the order if it has been necessitated in the changed circumstances or the Court passing the order is of the opinion that it has caused undue hardship to the other party. Both the remedies are concurrent. In the present case, notices were issued to the defendants, which were duly served upon them, but they did not appear and, therefore, the order dated 22.7.92, was passed by the learned trial Court which could not have been varied, discharged or set-aside on