JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - These two revisions have been filed against the order dated September 25, 1984 passed by Shri Vishnu Swarup, Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in Revision No. 55 and 67 of 1983-84. 2. It appears that Mangal Sen son of Nanak Chandra filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against Sri Sitaram Ji Maharaj and Nagarpanka, Aligarh and State of U.P. on February 21, 1983 in respect of plot No. 1372-B area 4-0-9 situate in Kasba Kol for the declaration of the rights on the basis of adverse possession. On an application moved by Mangal Sen on May 8, 1984 an order has been passed by the trial court on May 18, 1984 for restraining the parties from making constructions on the land and other reliefs. Mangal Sen has also moved an application on April 25, 1984 before the S.D.O. Kol for an injunction under Section 229-B. On May 28, 1984 an application was moved by a defendant revisionist for setting aside the orders passed by the trial court on May 18, 1984. That application was rejected by the trial court. Revisions were filed against both these orders before the learned Additional Commissioner which were numbered as revision No. 67 and 66 respectively. Both the revisions were rejected by the learned Additional Commissioner on September 25, 1984. Against that order these revisions have been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the records. This order shall govern revision No. 9-10 of 1984-85, Aligarh. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since an application for injunction was moved before the S.D.O. Kol, Aligarh on April 24, 1984 and that application under section 229-B of U.P. Act No. I of 1951 was pending, the plaintiff opposite party had no legal necessity to move an application afresh under Section 229-B that the order dated May 18, 1984 was passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. that the construction were being made with the permission of the Aligarh Development authority and as such it could not be said as illegal construction. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the trial court committed no error of law in granting the injunction order. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the trial court committed no error of law in granting the injunction order. 6. I find that an earlier application under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. I of 1951 dated April 24, 1984 was pending before the S.D.O. Kol, Aligarh and that application was neither pressed by the opposite party nor was mentioned in the latter application moved before the Assistant Collector 1st Class on May 8, 1984 as such I do not find any justification in moving another application on may 8, 1984 before the Assistant Collector 1st Class when an application was pending before the S.D.O. Kol, Aligarh. Moreover the provisions contained under Order 39 Rule Civil Procedure code were not observed. The Provision of Order 39 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code read as under:- "Order 39, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code - Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party:- The court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party: (Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant:- (a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with- (i) A copy of the affidavit filed in support of the Application; (ii) a copy of the plaint; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and (b) To file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent)." 7. I find that the orders passed by the trial court dated May 18, 1984 does not indicate the reasons for passing ex parte injunction. It only says that looking to the emergent situation the orders have been passed. On account of this I find the orders passed by the trial court are not sustainable in the eye of law. I find that the orders passed by the trial court dated May 18, 1984 does not indicate the reasons for passing ex parte injunction. It only says that looking to the emergent situation the orders have been passed. On account of this I find the orders passed by the trial court are not sustainable in the eye of law. They are consequently set aside and it is directed that the application dated April 24, 1984 moved before the S.D.O. Kol should be decided by the concerned S.D.O. Parties appear there on May 15, 1987.