JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents 1 and 2 through caveat.

2. This First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, at the instance of the defendants of the Original Suit No. 1465 of 2022, has been filed assailing the order dated 1.11.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 6, Meerut in Original Suit No. 1465 of 2022, whereby, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has proceeded to pass an ex-parte ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner and maintain status quo in respect of disputed Khasra Plot No. 2075 area 1-0-0 Bigha and plot No. 2076/1 area 0-2-0 Biswa situate in Kasba Sardhana, Tehsil-Sardhana, District Meerut till the next date fixed. The plaintiffs by the impugned order have been directed to take steps for compliance under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC fixing 30.11.2022 for objections/disposal of the paper No. 6C2.

3. Shri Chatterji, learned counsel for the defendants/appellants submits that the ex-parte impugned order is patently against the law and has been passed without applying judicial mind and thus in a slipshod manner. The Court below while passing the impugned order has failed to take into consideration that the plaintiffs failed to make out any prima facie case in their favour in as much as no documents to establish their title or possession over the land was filed on record for consideration of the Court. The plaintiffs further failed to establish balance of convenience to be in their favour or that non grant of the ad interim injunction would result in irreparable loss to them. It is further contended that the plaintiffs in fact played fraud upon the Court by concealing material facts and did not approach the Court with clean hands and thus not entitled to the injunction granted by the Court below. It is thus prayed that the ex parte injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs under the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Per Contra, Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondents 1 and 2 submits that the injunction order granted by the Court below is just and proper considering the urgency that was pleaded by the plaintiffs through application Paper No. 8C. He further submits that the injunction granted is not till disposal of the interim injunction application (paper No. 6C) but operative till the next date and time has been given to file objections to the appellants but the appellants have rushed to this Court to get the injunction vacated. It is further contended that the appellants have already appeared and filed their objections under Order 39 Rule 4 which is pending consideration.

5. Having heard the respective counsels and having perused the record as also the impugned order, the Court finds that the order under challenge is admittedly an order granting ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiffs respondents. In the opinion of the Court the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against an ex parte injunction is not maintainable.

3. Order 39 Rule 4 CPC deals with the situation at hand and provides that the order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside. The Provision of Order 39 Rule 4, as applicable in U.P., is reproduced below:

"4. Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside-Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the court for reasons to be recorded, either on its own motion or, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order.

Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application, a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular arid the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite