SRINIVASAN J.

These two revision petitions are against the orders passed by the District Munsiff, Udumalaipet, in I. A. Nos. 266 and 267 of 1995 granting ad interim injunction at the time of ordering notice on January 31, 1995. In I. A. No. 266 of 1995, the injunction was for restraining the respondents from taking any steps to delete article 16 of the articles of association of the first respondent company in violation of the rights of the plaintiffs under the said articles. In I. A. No. 267 of 1995, the injunction was for restraining respondents Nos. 2 to 6 from transferring the shares held by them in the first respondent company to any persons without offering them in the first instance to the plaintiffs and for restraining the company from registering or giving any effect to the transfer of such shares. In both the applications, the orders passed are in the following terms :

"Heard and perused. Issue notice with copy of documents. Ad interim injunction granted till February 9, 1995." *

Order XXXIX, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contains a specific provision that after it is proposed by the court to grant an injunction without giving notice of the appli