JUDGMENT J.K. Mathur, J. - Arya Pratinidhi Sabha through Chairman Dharmendra Singh Arya claiming to be the Secretary filed a suit against Man Mohan Tewari in the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow saying that Dharmendra Singh Arya has been elected the secretary of the plaintiff society in accordance with the order passed by this court while the defendant was trying to forcibly interfere with the plaintiff's working as such and has also tried to damage the property of the society. It was also alleged that the defendant was also publishing a periodical claiming to be the secretary of the plaintiff, the sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff through the newly elected managing committee and also to restrain them from publishing Arya Mitra, A declaration was also sought that the managing committee has been duly elected. 2. The plaintiff also moved an application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff by the managing committee duly elected on 2-2-1991 and from publishing Arya Mitra. The learned civil Judge issued notice to the opposite parties and by the impugned order refused to issue interim injunction in view of fact that there has been a hotly contested litigation between the parties. 3. Against this order passed under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC the present revision has been filed. 4. Sri S.C. Misra has appeared on behalf of opposite party. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On behalf of revisionist it was urged that the learned civil judge did not exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law and refused to pass an interim order merely on the ground that there was a prolonged litigation between the parties which factor was not a valid consideration for refusal to issue an interim order. 7. On behalf of opposite parties it was firstly urged that the revision against this order is not maintainable. It was also urged that no injunction could be issued in respect of internal management of the society in view of the amendment to Order 39 Rule 2 CPC. it was also argued that the suit itself was not maintainable. 8. 7. On behalf of opposite parties it was firstly urged that the revision against this order is not maintainable. It was also urged that no injunction could be issued in respect of internal management of the society in view of the amendment to Order 39 Rule 2 CPC. it was also argued that the suit itself was not maintainable. 8. As far as the second contention of the opposite party is concerned, it does not have any force in view of fact that the very provision sought to be pressed in service namely clause (d) of sub-rule (2) of rule 2 in order 39 has been deleted by U.P. Civil Laws Amendment) Ordinance, 1990 (enacted as U.P. Act no. 17 of 1991). As this provision has ceased to exist, it is not necessary to find whether it could have effectively kept an injunction being issued in the present case. 9. The other objection taken on behalf of opposite party was about the maintainability of the revision. 10. A revision would be maintainable u/s 115 CPC in case the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error and additionally is such as would cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it has been passed or would occasion failure of justice. 11. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the case of H. Bevis & Company v. Ram Behari (AIR (38) 1951 Alld. 8). in this case it has been held by two Judges that against an order refusing to grant an ex-parte injunction a revision is maintainable. 12. In view of this the order refusing to pass an ex-parte order would amount to a case decided. It would also be so in view of fact that it can have serious effect on the right of the party concerned. 13. According to the petitioner the learned trial court in this case has not exercised the jurisdiction vesting in it and has passed an order acting illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction by refusing injunction on irrelevant consideration, a revision would be maintainable. 14. It is, therefore, clear that in such a case as the present one a revision would be maintainable against an order refusing to issue an interim injunction specifically asked for when such a refusal rests on irrelevant grounds. 15. Order 39 Rule 3 runs as follows :- "R.3. 14. It is, therefore, clear that in such a case as the present one a revision would be maintainable against an order refusing to issue an interim injunction specifically asked for when such a refusal rests on irrelevant grounds. 15. Order 39 Rule 3 runs as follows :- "R.3. 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 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 port. 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. This provision would show that an injunction can be issued ex-parte on the ground that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay caused by not granting injunction at this stage. 16. When an injunction is asked for and is given under Order 39 Rule 1 or Order 39 Rule 2 CPC or an order of injunction is varied under Order 39 rule 4 CPC the court has invariably to see that the party asking for injunction has a prima facie case and also balance of convenience in his favour in addition to seeing that unless an injunction is granted, he would suffer an irreparable harm. Thee arc the parameters set for the exercise of discretion under the aforesaid provision though none of them have specifically spelt out in any of the aforesaid provisions. Thee arc the parameters set for the exercise of discretion under the aforesaid provision though none of them have specifically spelt out in any of the aforesaid provisions. Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC however, the requirement on which an injunction may be issued ex-parte has been specifically spelt out, that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay in issuing notice before granting the injunction. 17. The trial court, therefore, ought to have seen the nature of the claim put forward by the plaintiff and the nature of the injunction asked for by him. He had claimed that the society had been functioning through a duly elected set of managing committee while the defendants were interfering with the running of the society and had in fact tried to damage the property of the society in addition to interfering in its functioning and purporting to function on behalf of the society in publishing a newspaper. The petitioner had also produced relevant documents to show that they have been duly elected. The trial court ought to have considered those-documents firstly to see whether the plaintiffs did have a prima-facie right and if such a right would be irreversibly affected. For this he should have gone in to see whether in case injunction is not granted at this stage, the defendants were likely to damage or take away the property of the plaintiff as has been alleged. On these considerations alone the court could decide either to grant or to refuse the interim injunction at this stage of proceedings. Mere fact that there has been a prolonged litigation which was patent from the documents filed by the petitioner before the trial court by itself could not be a reason to refuse injunction at any stage much less at this stage. It only required the court to peruse these documents with a view to find a prima-facie case and the statutory requirement of irreparable loss. 18. In view of fact that notices have been issued and the opposite parties arc to appear before the trial court on 27th of this month, it may not be proper for this court, which does not have the benefit of the objection on behalf of the defendant' or any material that he may like to produce before it, to finally decide about the prima-facie case or irreparable loss. However, in view of fact that an interim order was issued by this court and the opposite parties do not object to the continuance of that till the application for temporary injunction to be determined by the trial court, this revision is allowed only to the extent that the opposite parties defendants shall not destroy or take away any property belonging to the plaintiffs or interfere with the plaintiffs' functioning till the disposal of the application for injunction by the trial court. The trial court shall decide the matter irrespective of this order. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.