( 1 ) THIS appeal undear Rule 1 of Order 43 CPC is by the 1st defendant in os. 37/1974 on the file of the Civil Judge at Haveri. The appellant is aggrieved by an order made by the Civil Judge on IA. 2 filed by the plaintiff. ( 2 ) IA. 2 was for the grant of injunction under Or. 39 CPC. It would appear the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant (1st defendant) and defendant 5 was not present when the case was called on for hearing on 7-9-1974 to which date IA. 2 had been posted specifically for objections by the said defendants. On that day, the learned Counsel appearing for the ether defendants, presumably appearing for the Counsel who had been absent, requested for time. The learned Civil Judge refused to accede to the request merely on the ground that the said Counsel appearing proxy, had not filed vakalath for those defendants. He also made the temporary injunction absolute by the same order, without examining the truth or otherwisa of the allegations made in support of an application for suck injunction. ( 3 ) IT seems to me that the learned Civil Judge was in somewhat of a hurry in making the order impugned herein. It is a well settled practice of the Courts that learned Counsel are permitted to be represented proxy by other Counsel, and any representation made by them must be taken to be the representation of the Counsel en record, unless it is shown to be otherwise. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, was clearly in error in rejecting the request on the ground aformentioned. ( 4 ) THE order of the learned Civil Judge is also vitiated for another reason, as submitted by Sri T. J. Chouta, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Merely because objections had not been filed, a Court was not absolved from the responsibility of examining the allegations and passing an order in its judicial discretion, however brief it might be, in the context of such allegations. The order in question does not at all indicate that the learned judge had applied his mind to such allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of IA. 2. This is especially so when such an order is appealable. . The, order, therefore, is clearly unsustainable. The appeal, therefore, is accepted and is accordingly allowed. The order in question does not at all indicate that the learned judge had applied his mind to such allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of IA. 2. This is especially so when such an order is appealable. . The, order, therefore, is clearly unsustainable. The appeal, therefore, is accepted and is accordingly allowed. The order impugned herein is set aside. The matter, however, will stand remitted to the Court below for a fresh disposal of IA. 2, and in the light of any objections that may be filed by the appellant when the said application is taken up for reconsideration by the Court. The appellant is permitted to file the objections within two weeks of the receipt of this order by the court below. No costs. --- *** --- .