1. Petitioner is an Association. They are the third respondent in I.A.Nos.18317 and 18318 of 1999 in O.S. No. 7331 of 1999 of the file of XVIII Assistant Judge, Civil City Court, Chennai. The above revisions are filed against the ex parte interim orders passed under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 19.11.1999.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order is passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of order 39, Rule 3, CPC without giving reasons. It is further submitted that on the plaint averments, petitioner is not a member of the Association and that his application for membership has been rejected. Whileso, an injunction in the nature of a mandatory order to the respondent herein not to interfere from using the facilities as a member for his family members was granted erronerousely. Besides, the learned City Civil Court Judge also passed an interim order directing the respondents to accept the payment. Thus, according to him, the learned Judge did not consider the matter before issuing an ex parte interim injunction orders.

3. The respondent appearing as a party-in-person raised the following points: