JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This appeal is directed against order dated 11th July, 1988, passed by Link Officer of Civil Judge, Agra in Original Suit No. 782 of 1988, staying ex parte injunction order dated 8th July, 1988. 2. Plaintiff-appellant is an author of some Psychology books. Respondents are publishers. Plaintiff-appellant entered into agreement with the respondents or some of them for publication of his books. In the said Agreement certain royalty was made payable to the plaintiff-appellant. It is said that in June, 1986 plaintiff-appellant served notice upon the respondents terminating the agreement. He called upon respondents to render accounts. Ultimately on 8th July, 1988 plaintiff-appellant filed suit for accounting and injunction. In the plaint he alleged breach of the agreement and infringement of his copyright. With the plaint he presented application for ad interim injunction. Link Officer issued notice and meanwhile further issued ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from publishing printing or selling his books. It appears that on 11th July, 1988 defendants moved application for vacating the ex parte injunction. Link Officer noted that defendants counsel gave undertaking not to print, publish and sell any book in dispute till 13.7.1988. Link Officer directed that case be put up on 13.7.1988. Meanwhile he stayed operation of order dated 8.7.1988. It is significant to note that the ex parte injunction issued on 8.7.1988 was to operate only till the next date which was 2.8.1988. Then it appear that from 12th July, 1988 Civil Court employees proceeded on strike. They called-off the strike on 29 or 30 July, 1988. But again went on token strike on 10.8.1988. Strikes paralysed the work in the Civil Court and so the injunction application could not be disposed of. It further appears that the parties took time for exchanging affidavits. Suit was transferred to 2nd Additional, Civil Judge. 3. Appellant came to this Court and ex parte injunction was issued. Notices were issued to the respondents. They filed application foil vacating ex parte injunction. Appellant filed rejoinder affidavit. Parties have been heard at this stage and so appeal is being disposed of at this stage. 4. First of all for the guidance of the inordinate judiciary attention should be drawn to the provisions of Order 39, Rules 3 and 3A, C.P.C. Presiding Officer of the subordinate judicial should carefully note proviso of Order 39, Rule? Parties have been heard at this stage and so appeal is being disposed of at this stage. 4. First of all for the guidance of the inordinate judiciary attention should be drawn to the provisions of Order 39, Rules 3 and 3A, C.P.C. Presiding Officer of the subordinate judicial should carefully note proviso of Order 39, Rule? which run as under:- "Provided that, there it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of application to the opposite party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the 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 injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with: (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the in application; (ii) a copy of the plaint and (iii) copies of documents of 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." Officers of the subordinate judiciary should not overlook that order 39. Rule 3 A requires that where on injunction has been granted ex parte the court should endeavour to finally dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where the court is unable to do so, it should record its reasons for such inability. 5. It is unfortunate that the Link Office who passed ex parte order of injunction of 8th July, 1988 was not aware of the proviso to Onto; 39 Rule 3. If he would have been aware he would have tried to find out reasons for the opinion that not granting ex parte injunction would defeat the object of granting the injunction. And the Link Officer searched the reasons he would have detected that plaintiff-appellant had already filed suit for accounting and so even if ex parte injunction was not granted plaintiff could be ultimately compensated. 6. It is, however, evident that the Link Officer granted ex parte injunction. That was appealable order. And the Link Officer searched the reasons he would have detected that plaintiff-appellant had already filed suit for accounting and so even if ex parte injunction was not granted plaintiff could be ultimately compensated. 6. It is, however, evident that the Link Officer granted ex parte injunction. That was appealable order. If plaintiff could secure such appealable order from Link Officer he is stopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Link Officer to stay the ex parte injunction order. The Link Officer had stayed the ex parte injunction on clear undertaking of the defendants counsel and he had ordered the case to be fixed for 13th July, 1988. There was no impropriety or illegality in this order. At any rate the ex parte injunction granted on 8th July, 1988 was to expire on 2nd August, 1988. After that date plaintiff-appellant can have no grudge about staying of ex parte injunction. It cannot be said that even after that date he is prejudiced by order under appeal. The remedy for the plaintiff-appellant lies in seeking disposal of the application by the Trial Court itself. I have already drawing attention of the Presiding Officer of the subordinate judiciary to provisions of Order 39, Rules 3 and 3A. Court where the suit is pending, shall endeavour to dispose of the injunction application as early as possible and at least within the time contemplated in Rule 3A. 7. On behalf of the defendant-respondent it was argued that the suit as brought by aforesaid appellant is not cognizable by Civil Judge because it is a suit under Section 55 of Trade Mark and Copyright Act and under Section 62 of the said Act such suit is congnizable by District Judge. When there is appeal against an ex parte injunction order the Appellate Court should be decide the appeal only on the material which was on record till that date. It cannot decide or enter into new pleas. Hence at this stage refrain from entering into the question whether the suit lies in the Court of Civil Judge or not. It would suffice to mention that argument in this court was that the suit is based on breach of agreement and not on infringement of copyright. While disposing of injunction application the lower court shall consider the plea raised on behalf of the defendant-respondent. 8. It would suffice to mention that argument in this court was that the suit is based on breach of agreement and not on infringement of copyright. While disposing of injunction application the lower court shall consider the plea raised on behalf of the defendant-respondent. 8. Having heard the parties and having given full attention to all the matters involved, this appeal has no force and should be dismissed. But before parting with this appeal for the sake of guidance of the Presiding Officers of the subordinate judiciary it has to be pointed out that Presiding Judge has to be firm in judicial proceedings. Passing an ex parte order and then withdrawing it or staying it in ex parte manner on the appearance of the other party, only shows lack of firmness. For avoiding unnecessary criticism firmness is absolutely necessary. 9. In result, appeal is dismissed. Ex parte injunction issued by this court is vacated. Parties shall bear there own costs of this appeal.