CIMA is directed against the order dated 04.06. 2012, whereunder, ad interim injunction application has been allowed by the Trial court and appel­lants have been directed to allow the respondents to avail active parking place for four sumos till disposal of the application filed by the defendants un­der Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Appellants have also challenged order dated 21st July, 2012, where-under, learned Trial court directed SHO P/S Batamaloo to implement the injunction order.

2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Trial Judge could not pass interim orders in a suit for mandatory injunction without affording opportunity to file objections and with­out hearing the other side.

3. Mr. M. Sultan, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Trial Court was justified in passing the order impugned in the Ap­peal as the facts and circumstances of the case warranted for issuance of such directions.

4. Since the maintainability of the Suit had come under eclipse, in view of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the learned Trial Court ought to have decided that application in the first instance.

5. In the present Appeal, at this stage, thi