An appeal does not lie against an ex parte ad interim injunction order passed without any reason or grounds under O. 39, R. 1, C.P.C. The aggrieved party should seek relief under O. 39, R. 4, C.P.C. to vacate or modify the order.

(RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.):

1. The subject matter In this Civil Revision Petition presents at once an inconvenient and a provocative situation. It is inconvenient for the reason that many of the High Courts other than our High Court, excepting a single judge of oar court, have taken a view different from the one we intend taking, and it is provocative because this case is responsible for us to give notice to the Advocates Association, to the Bar Association and to the Women Lawyers Association end on the top of its request a senior counsel like Mr. K. Parasaran to be oar Amicus curiae to assist us to solve out certain apparent riddles which the case confronts us with.

2. The facts are very simple. The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 518 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tirupathur, North Arcot District and contemporaneously filed I.A. No. 2382 of 1973, and sought for i an ed Interim temporary injunction against the respondents defendants or their agents restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. On 24th November, 1975, the learned District Munsiff passed an order to the following effect:

“Ad interim injunction and netiee by 20th December, 1975.”

The respondents took up the matter in appeal in C.M.A. No. 72 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirupathur and filed I.A. No. 595 of 1975 therein seeking for an interim suspension of the order of interim injunction passed by the learned District Munsif. The learned Subordinate Judge, on the 29th November, 1975 passed an order to the effect that the interim injunction granted in I.A. No. 2382 of 1975 in O.S. No. 518 of 1973 dated 24th November, 1975 by the District Munsif, Tiiupatbur, be suspended. As against this, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. When the case was set for admission before our learned brother, V. Rsmaswami, J., the judgment of Mabarajan, J, in Mangai Achi v. Asoken 1973-1-M.L.J. 128: 86 L.W. 449, was brought to his notice. The learned Judge made the following observations:

“There are a number of petitions pending disposal which are against the interim orders made by the lower courts.

When District Munsif or an Appellate Authority grants an Interim ex parte order, without seeking to vacate that order by filing so application for the it me, the parties ate resorting to file appeals and revisions against the ed interim ex parte order Itself, on the basis of a decision of this Court given by Mabarajan, J., in Mangol Achi v. Ashokan 1.

The question whether an appeal or a revision is maintainable against the ex parte interim order, when there is an alternative remedy of vacating it by filing an application before the same court has to be authoritatively dacided by a Bench.

Papers may, therefore, be pleased before MY LORD the Chief Justice for orders.”

It is in this context that the Civil Revision Petition is set before us for a decision.

3. Mr. Sivasubramaniam appearing for Mr. Gandhi raised a preliminary objection that the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiropathur as an appellate Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to take on its file the appeal C.M.A. No. 72 of 1975, and in consequence, the interlocutory order passed by him suspending the ad interim injunction granted by the learned District Munsif is ultra virus and without jurisdiction. He would try to distinguish the case before Maharajan, J., referred to above, and after referring to the fundamentals governing the issuance of an interim injunction, or for that matter any order by a Civil Court and with particular reference to the provisions in the C.P.C. itself, the learned counsel will say that the appeal itself is not maintainable, and therefore, the order sought to be challenged in this Civil Revision Petition ought to be set aside as being passed without jurisdiction. As the question raised certain, as already stated, Inconvenient and provocative problems,