Revisions in such cases are not maintained ordinarily.

Srinivasan, J.

1. This revision petition is against an order passed on 26-5-1988 by the vacation Civil Judge in IA. No. 697 of 1988. It is, no doubt, an ad interim ex parte order and a revision petition is not ordinarily maintainable in this Court. Normally, this Court does not entertain a revision petition against an ad interim injunction, when the Court below open to the opposite party in such a case is to approach the same Court for vacating the injunction order or passing appropriate order as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Shukoor Sahib v. Umachander and Ors. A.I.R. 1976 Mad. 350 : 89 L.W. 550.

2. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the order of interim injunction made by the trial Court in this case is in complete violation of the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. When the Civil Procedure Code was amended in 1976 by Act 104 of 1976, a proviso was introduced in Order 39, Rule 3, whereby when a court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party; the Court shall record reasons for its decision that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay and require the applicant to comply with certain conditions set out therein.

3. Unfortunately, the members of the Subordinate Judiciary do not take care to adhere to the Rule contained either in the proviso of Rule 3-A. Recently, I had an occasion to interview certain temporary District Munsifs for the selection of District Munsifs. I had questioned each one of the persons who had acted as temporary District Munsifs whether he was aware of Order 39, Rules 3 and 3-A, Code of Civil Procedure, and I found to my dismay that none was able to answer that question. None of them was aware of the contents of these two rules. That position seems to be prevailing even with the Subordinate Judges. The proceeding from which this revision has arisen is dealt with by a Subordinate Judge who was functioned as Vacation Civil Judge.

4. In this case, he has ordered an ad interim injunction till 21-6-1988 without recording any reason for granting the temporary injunction without giving notice to the opposite side or hearing the opposite side. This is in violation of the procedure prescribed by Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. It is very unfortunate that a Subordinate Judge should ignore the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure while passing orders in a matter like this. Particularly in this case, the order of interim injunction has the effect of paralysing the work of a company. The allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for injunction are to the effect that defendants 2 and 3 in the suit had ceased to be Directors of the Company some where in 1986 or 1987. The suit has been filed only on 25-5-1988. The cause of action for the suit is said to be a notice dated 2-5-1988 calling for an Annual General Meeting of the company to be held on 27-5-1988. The notice was admittedly received by the plaintiff on 4-5-1988. The suit is filed by a shareholder. The suit is filed twenty-one days after the receipt of the notice of the Annual General Meeting and by the application for interim injunction the plaintiff prayed for a direction restraining respondents 2 and 3, who are two of the three directors of the Company, not only from convening the General Body Meeting on 27-5-1988 but also from operating the Bank account or acting as directors. On 26-5-1988 the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order granting ad interim injunction. By granting that injunction, he had restrained defendants 2 and 3, who are two of the three directors of the Company, from not only calling for the General Body Meeting but also from operating Bank account or in any way acting as directors of the first defendant company. Even assuming that the holding of the Genera Body Meeting should have been stopped without issuing notice to the defendants, there was no justi