( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 (plaintiff No. 11 is a registered partnership firm of which the appellants and other respondents are partners. The firm deals in manufacture and sale of bidi and has extensive property. It has accounts in different banks. It appears that the two appellants on one side and the respondents 2 to 7 on the other have now formed two separate groups and their interests are adverse to each other. The respondents feel that the recent activities of appellants are adverse to the interest of the partnership and therefore, in order to prevent them from continuing such activities, they brought a suit claiming declaration that they to the exclusion of the appellants are en- titled to conduct the business of the partnership only in consultation with the appellants, the appellants cannot oust the plaintiffs from controlling the management of the affairs of the partnership firm, and that the appellant be injuncted either personally or through their agents from entering the business premises of the firm and from interfering with the management of the firm in any manner whatsoever. An injunction is also claimed restraining the appellants from interfering with day-to-day and routine matter connected with the control and management of the affairs of the firm. Injunction is also claimed restraining the appellants from starting or carrying on any independent business in the name and style of "m/s. Purshottam Bhai Dhoribhai and Company (H. U. F.) or under any other name identical to or deceptively similar to the name of the plaintiff firm. Certain other reliefs have also been claimed. In paragraphs 11 to 23 of the plaint, various averments have been made showing the adverse activities of the appellants, the sum total of which is that they have started a competitive business in a name identical with the name of the plaintiff firm (M/s. Purshottam Bhai Dhoribhai and Company), that they have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 50. 000 for themselves out of the partnership funds, that they have issued directions to the banks freezing accounts of the firm with those banks, and that one Atul Patel was manhandled of which a report was loaded to the Police Station, Kanker. It is also alleged that due to the aforesaid activities of the appellants, about 2500 employees of the firm have become panicky and the business of the firm cannot be carried on smoothly. An application for grant of temporary injunction was made simultaneously with the suit along with an affidavit and certain documents. The plaintiffs could succeed in persuading the trial Court to pass an ex parte temporaray injunction restraining the appellants from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the routine and day-to-day administration of the business of the plaintiff No. 1. The present appeal is directed against this order.

( 2 ) THE grant of temporary injunction is governed by Order 30. Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since this provision permits indulgence to a suitor even without adjudication of his claim on merits. Rule 3 of Order 39 requires the Court to issue a notice of the application for grant of temporary injunction to the opposite party before passing any order in terms of that order. The provisions are, however, aimed at preventing any immediate waste, damage or alienation of the property in dispute in a suit or from its being wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. The purpose of this provision is also to prevent a defendant to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud this creditor and to restrain him from committing a breach of a contract or any other injury of the kind. Occasions are not few when a party needs immediate intervention of the Court for a direction to the opposite party in terms of Order 39. At such occasions, the issuance of notice to the opposite party of an application for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit and awaiting the reply of that party may defeat the object of the applicati