V.K. Gupta, A.C.J.

1. This Revision petition is directed against the order dated 20th September, 2000, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Appeal No. 51/2000, whereby, even while issuing directions to the trial Court to hear the injunction application on 23rd, September, 2000, he summarily and cryptically rejected the petitioners prayer for setting aside the status quo granted by the trial Court on 7th, September, 2000.

2. As per the office note, the respondent No. 1 has been served, but no one appears on its behalf.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

4. Very disturbingly and distressingly I find that the trial Court, by violating all norms, based an ex parte ad interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff and against the petitioner-defendant with regard to the maintenance of status quo, bul without recording any reasons as to how and why the trial Court was granting an ad interim injunction at an ex parts stage without issuing notice and without hearing the defendant in the suit. More distressingly I find that the appellate Court i.e., learned 1st Additional District Judge, even while preponding the injunction application to 23rd September, 2000 rejected summarily the petitioners prayer for setting aside the status quo order even though the petitioner had repeatedly advanced arguments to show as to how and in what manner the status quo order was causing acute hardships to the petitioner and was working to its grave prejudice. It was the bounden duty of the learned 1st Additional District Judge to have taken into consideration these submissions of the petitioner and should have recorded reasons as to why was it not inclined to allow the petitioners prayer for setting aside the status quo order.

5. It is now an established principle of law that in all cases where a plaintiff asks a trial Court for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, in respect to the subject- matter of a suit filed by him in that Court, the trial Court must issue notice to the defendant to show cause as to why injunction be not granted and only after hearing the defendant an order can be passed granting or refusing the temporarily injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. It is only because of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the Court has the jurisdiction and power to grant an injunction without giving notice to the defendant about the plaintiffs application but the Court shall do so only by recording reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction can be defeated by delay. Any order passed by a Court, therefore, granting ex parte ad interim injunction without observing the aforesaid mandatory requirement of law is bad and illegal. In the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors, reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 161, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with this important legal question observed as under :--

"32. Power to grant injunction is an extra-ordinary power vested in the Court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in all cases the Court shall, before grant of an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite-party, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would bo defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying that "where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, the Court shall record the reasons for itsopinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay....."

33. It has come to our notice that inspite of t