An appeal against an ex parte injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code, as it is in fact an order under Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39.

1. Harbans Singh plaintiff (petitioner in this revision petition) owns certain land situated in village Dakha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, over which he has built a residential house as well as has planted a mango orchard. Respondent Rajinder Rajan proposes to install a brick-kiln for the manufacture of bricks in the land belonging to Mal Singh, respondent 2 which is in the vicinity of the plaintiff s land. According to the plaintiff, the said defendant-respondent has already applied to the District Food and Supplies Controller, Ludhiana for the grant of necessary licence for installation of the brick-kiln.

2. Feeling aggrieved against the proposed installation of the brick-kiln, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana on 12th Dec. 1987 for the grant of permanent injunction restraining Respondent 1 from installing the brick-kiln in the land of respondent 2. An application for the grant of temporary injunction against the said respondent was also submitted by the plaintiff stating therein that according to the statutory provisions contained in the Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Order, 1972, no brick-kiln could be installed in the locality having residential houses and within a distance of 700 metres from mango orchards or mango plantation and 100 metres from a garden or nursery.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dt. 12th Dec. 1987 appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the spot in order to give the exact picture about the existing nature of the property and also ordered that "the parties should maintain status quo with regard to the land in dispute till further order".

4. Since this was an ex parte order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 12th Dec. 1987 at the time of registering the suit, Rajinder Rajan defendant-respondent filed an appeal against the same before the District Judge, Ludhiana on 14th Dec. 1987. The learned District Judge sent for the lower court file as well as the file pertaining to the application for the grant of license from the Office of the District Food and Supplies Controller, Ludhiana. After perusal of the same and after hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge was of the view that "if the impugned ex parte ad interim order is allowed to stand, it shall result in stalling the proceedings before the District Food and Supplies Controller, the authority competent in law to go into the merits of appellant s application for grant of licence and pass appropriate orders thereon. The District Food and Supplies Controller, as required by the relevant provisions of the order issued under the Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Order 1972, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, either refuse to grant the licence applied for or grant it, subject to general or special instructions notified by the State Government, from time to time in this regard and after considering in particular whether the site of the kiln is or is not detrimental to the health of the general public or to the crops, gardens, or nurseries, in the close proximity of the site of the kiln. Thus, I find, in the first instance, it is the authority competent to grant or refuse the licence which has to apply its mind to the whole gamut, relevant factors and circumstances. The stage for scrutinising or reviewing the order of the authority by the Court shall arrive only thereafter. Such stage, in the instant case, has not arrived, the same is decidedly premature and as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to intervene. The Court s intervention at this stage indeed tantamounts restraining a lawful authority from discharging functions, the law has enjoined on it". Taking the aforesaid view, the learned District Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the interim order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 12th Dec. 1987.

5. Mr. N.C. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner, has challenged the order of the learned Di