The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of injunction must comply with the requirements of Order XXXIX, proviso to Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, and reasons must be recorded for granting injunction without notice to the opposite party.

S. N. Srivastava, J.—Impugned herein is the order dated 16.6.2004, passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur in Civil Revision No. 128 of 2004 by which parties were directed to maintain present position till the date fixed (11.7.2004) for disposal of injunction application.

2. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that O.S. No. 292 of 2004 was instituted by the plaintiff respondents for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the property described in the plaint map by letters Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, Cha. The boundaries of the property have also been enumerated in the plaint. It would further transpire that trial court, i.e., Civil Judge (S.D.) Gorakhpur on 16.6.2004, merely issued notices to the opposite parties fixing 11.7.2004 for disposal of injunction application and aggrieved by the order, a revision was preferred the same day before the District Judge who passed the order impugned herein. It is in the above backdrop that the present petition has been instituted for the relief.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order canvassing that on a careful consideration of the materials brought on record, the trial court opined not to grant ad interim injunction sans opportunity of hearing to the defendants and therefore, merely issued notices to the opposite parties but the revisional court without observing in compliance the mandatory requirements of Order XXXIX, proviso to Rule 3, proceeded to pass order of injunction without recording any reasons. The learned counsel further canvassed that the order having been passed in utter disregard of mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX, proviso to Rule 3, is manifestly erroneous in law and is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel lastly submitted that no revision lay as there was no order passed by the trial court rejecting application for injunction and merely notices had been issued. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties tried to prop up the impugned order contending that reasons in justification of the order have to be gleaned from the memo of revision itself, which clearly vouched for extreme urgency of passing injunction in the matter. He further contended that the order was rightly passed considering the facts and circumstances and situational urgency and no interference is, therefore, called for in the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents also canvassed that once an application is moved praying for interim injunction attended with a statement of certain exigencies, refusal to pass any order of injunction and merely directing to issue notices, would amount to refusal to pass order at that stage and as such the said order could be challenged by the superior court.

4. I have carefully and studiously gone through the materials on record and considered the arguments made across the Bar.

5. It bears no dispute that though in the present case, supplementary - affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit and various affidavits bringing on record various other documents in support of its case by the plaintiff had been filed and notwithstanding all these materials before it, the trial court merely preferred to issue notices fixing a date for disposal of injunction matter. In this connection, it may be observed that grant or refusal of injunction was in the discretion of the trial court. No doubt, the discretion to be exercised by the trial court should not be arbitrary and should be a judicial one to be exercised in accordance with reason and on sound judicial principles. From a perusal of the order passed by the trial court, it is explicit that the trial court, upon a careful consideration of the entire materials before it, was of the view that it would not be in the interest of justice to pass any order of injunction without hearing the other side. It is not the case that the trial court acted either illegally or without material irr