Lok Pal Singh, J.

1. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.02.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Haridwar in O.S. No. 33 of 2019 granting ex-parte injunction in the favour of respondent/plaintiff and order dated 20.04.2019 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar whereby the civil appeal no. 20 of 2019 filed by the petitioner was rejected.

2. Facts, in brief, are that first respondent/plaintiff filed suit for permanent/prohibitory injunction against the petitioners and proforma respondent nos. 2 to 4 being O.S. No. 33 of 2019 praying that the petitioners, their agents, representative, associates etc. be restrained by decree of perpetual injunction from interfering in the daily affairs of the society and also to restrain them from disposing of any property as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. An application, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking the same relief was filed. Trial court passed an ex-parte order dated 07.02.2019 and granted temporary injunction in the favour of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 restraining the petitioners from entering and interference in the property in dispute and also not to destroy the property in dispute.

3. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2019, petitioners preferred miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2019, Balwant Singh Chauhan & anr. vs. Mahavidhyalaya Sabha Jwalapur & ors. The appellate court by impugned order dated 20.04.2019 dismissed the appeal. Hence, present writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial court has passed the ex-parte order without recording its satisfaction that plaintiff has prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. He would further submit that unless the court is convinced that plaintiff has prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the court should not have passed the ex-parte injunction order. It is further contended that in case of urgency, court may fix early date inviting objection from the defendants, but, the court has not recorded the reasons and observed that in case ex-parte injunction is not granted, then the purpose of the plaintiff would frustrate and passed ex-parte injunction order.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ramrameshwari Devi[(2011) 8 SCC 249 Ramrameshwari Devi and ors. vs. Nirmala Devi & ors.] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 44 and 52 has held as follows:-

"44. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.

52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials.

A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims o