JUDGMENT S. K. Verma, J. - This is a plaintiff's application in revision against the appellate cycler of the learned District Judge of Moradabad, dismissing his appeal against the order of the learned Additional Munsif of Moradabad, rejecting an application for an ad-interim injunction and vacating an exparte injunction order. 2. According to the plaintiff-applicant's case, he was employed by the Northern Railway as a Works Mistri and later on when there were some vacancies in the higher grade of Assistant Inspector of Works, lie was appointed as such after necessary selection and training on January 15, 1964. According to the plaintiff-applicant, as some permanent incumbents returned and some posts of Assistant Inspector of works became surplus, retrenchment became necessary. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the Railway Administration from reverting him before reverting those persons who were junior to him. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-applicant filed an application for a temporary injunction which was granted exparte but was subsequently vacated as already mentioned above. 4. The learned District Judge has said in his judgment that the learned counsel for the Railway had very clearly stated that the defendant had no intention whatsoever of reverting the appellant before his juniors and that no reversion order in respect of the plaintiff had so far been actually passed. The learned District judge has also observed as follows: "Similarly, the defendant railway had not given any categorical assurance as now offered by learned counsel for defendant respondent. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of proper pleadings on behalf of the defendant it would not be proper to totally dismiss appellant's application for injunction and a properly guarded injunction should be issued in appellant's favour." He, however, dismissed the appeal because the date of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure mentioned in the plaint, showed that two months had not elapsed before the filing of the suit, and after the giving of the notice. In K. R. Muthu A. R. Arunachalam Chetty v. David Esq., the Official Receiver, Ramnad Dist., A.I.R. 1927 Mad. In K. R. Muthu A. R. Arunachalam Chetty v. David Esq., the Official Receiver, Ramnad Dist., A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 166 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary if the suit was for the purpose of restraining future acts and such a notice was necessary only when the suit was in respect of past acts completed or begun but incomplete but it did not apply to future or threatened acts. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Babu Rameshwar Prasad Singh v. Md. Ayyub, A.I.R. 1950 Patna 527. A learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court took the same view in the State of Bihar v. Raghunandan Singh, A.I.R. 1960 Patna 530. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has also taken the same view in Bai Jilekhabai Adreman v. Competent Officer, A.I.R. 1961 Gujarat 85 (Evacuee Interest Separation). Learned counsel for the opposite party has not been able to show me any authority of any Court to the contrary. 5. I, therefore, allow this application in revision with costs, set aside the order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad and send the case back to him so that he may reconsider the question whether an injunction should be granted to the applicant and, if so, in what form. The interim order passed by this Court shall continue until the elate of hearing of the appeal by the learn- ed District Judge.