MURALIDHARA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1531/1982 challenging the order passed by the 13th Additional City Civil judge, Bangalore dated 29. 5. 1982. The plaintiff is aggrieved only in respect of the last portion of the order which reads : "the defendants are at liberty to demolish such portion which is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan". ( 2 ) THE above order is passed on the application filed by plaintiff on I. A. No. I, before the notices were served to the respondents-defendants The plaintiff was heard in the matter. This appeal is directed to vary the above terms in the impugned order. At the outset, it is doubtful, whether this appeal is maintainable, as the plaintiff has not moved the court, under the provisions of Order 39 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Shaker Shetty submitted that the appeal is maintainable under Order43 Rule 1 of the C. P. Code; and the order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 39 Rule 4 are appealable. It is no doubt true that such orders are appealable, nevertheless, the question is whether it would be expedient to the aggrieved party to move the Court below or to file an appeal under order 43 rule 1 of the C. P. Code. This matter is no longer res integra ; in Parijatha v. Kamalaksha Nayak [1981 (2) K. L. J. page 570] it has been held that :"for the foregoing reasons, we hold that order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code does not allow the filing of an appeal from an ex parte interim order of temporary injunction granted under Rule 1 or 2 of Order 39, but the remedy of the aggrieved person is to move the trial Court under Rule 4 of Order 39 of the Code in the first instance. We further hold that even a stranger to the suit or proceeding can maintain such an application. We hereby over rule the decisions of single judges, taking a view, in favour of the permissibility of an appeal against an interim ex parte order of temporary injunction to wit, keshavachand Gopalachand Gujjar v. Ningappa Pandappa Kolakar (3), Bhima ningappa Khot v. Ratnabai (4) and mahila Samaj v Smt. Varija Aithal (5 ). We hereby over rule the decisions of single judges, taking a view, in favour of the permissibility of an appeal against an interim ex parte order of temporary injunction to wit, keshavachand Gopalachand Gujjar v. Ningappa Pandappa Kolakar (3), Bhima ningappa Khot v. Ratnabai (4) and mahila Samaj v Smt. Varija Aithal (5 ). In the result, the view taken by the appellate Court that the appeal before it was competent, cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, we allow this revision petition and reverse the order of the learned Civil Judge on the sole ground that the appeal before him was not maintainable. It is however open to the petitioners to move the trial court under Rule 4 of Order 39 of the code. We leave open the contentions of parties on the merits of the case". ( 3 ) MR. Shaker Shetty contended that the ratio of the above decision is not applicable ; according to him, the word "aggrieved Party" eployed in above above decision would only mean the "defendant" against whom there is an order and not the plaintiff in whose favour the order is passed, though some part of it may not be in favour of the plaintiff. It is difficult to accept such contention. Clause 4 of order 39 enables the aggrieved party to apply for discharging, varying or setting aside the order passed under Order 39 rule 1. This may be availed of by plaintiff himself or by defendant. If the plaintiff requires variation, in view of subsequent developments, he is entitled to make an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the C. P. Code. Therefore, to hold that Order 39 Rule 4 is not available to the plaintiff for variation of the earlier order cannot be accepted. This position appears to be clear, in view of second proviso to Rule 4 which reads :-"provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party. " ( 4 ) IN view of this, I am of the opinion, that order 39 Rule 4 of the C P. Code is available either to the plaintiff or to the defendant to seek a variation in the order passed under Order 39 Rule 1. The aggrieved party does not mean that it is the defendant alone who can make an application under that provision. ( 5 ) THOUGH the order passed under order 39 Rules 1 and 4 are made appealable, under Order 43, nevertheless in view of the above decision, a party has a remedy by way of moving the Court under order 39 Rule 4 of the C. P. Code, in the first instance, therefore this appeal is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the dismissal of this appeal would not come in the way of the appellant moving the Court under order 39 Rule 4 of the C. P. Code. No costs. --- *** --- .