Judgment :- This civil revision petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred under the following circumstances: respondent herein has filed O.S.No.232 of 1990, on the file of the Court of District Nilgiris at Ootacamund on 8.10.1990. The said suit was one for partition and possession of plaintiffs half share in two suit items. Simultaneously, the respondent also I.A.No.703 of 1990 for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein any person claiming under them from interfering with the respondent’s joint possession the suit properties and from alienating the same or any portions thereof to any third pending disposal of the suit. The respondent was successful in getting an ex parte injunction. The order granting interim injunction simply reads: “Heard. Interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from alienating the entire suit property..... matter was posted to 9.11.1990. No reason for granting such an order was given District Judge. 2. On coming to know of the granting of ex parte injunction, the petitioners filed a written statement in the suit and also filed a counter in I.A.No.703 of 1990 bringing notice of the Court that the respondent herein initially filed O.S.No.157 of 1990 on the Court of District Munsif, Gudalur, Nilgiris, in respect of the identical properties along I.A.No.489 of 1990. The suit filed in the Court of the District Munsif was one for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession enjoyment of the respondent herein of the suit properties. Be it noted, the stand taken suit filed in the District Munsif’s Court by the respondent herein was to the effect was in separate possession and enjoyment of earmarked portion of properties from the suit properties as detailed in the plaint. On that basis alone, an I. ANo.489 of However, the learned District Munsif declined to grant an ex parte interim injunction the endorsement, the suit was filed on 25.7.1990. Having failed to obtain an ex parte injunction in the District Munsif’s Court, the respondent herein filed the suit in the Court out of which the present civil revision petition arises, totally suppressing the earlier suit and I.A.No.489 of 1990 for injunction and the stand taken by her in that When these facts were brought to the notice of the District Judge, it is expected of dispose of I.A.No.703 of 1990 immediately without any delay. Surprisingly and for best known to him, the District Judge has not disposed of the I.A. so far, notwithstanding the fact that he has not given any reason while granting the ex parte injunction and of a duty cast on him under O.39, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The petitioners herein before filing this civil revision petition, seem to have filed a against the above said interim order in this Court in C.M.A.S.R.No. 86001 of 1990 26.10.1990. That C.M.A. was, however, dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, petitioners moved an application in I.A.No.768 of l990 on 8.11.1990 for advancing the hearing I.ANo.703 of 1990. That application was ordered posting I.A.No.703 of 1990 for final on 12.11.1990. From then onwards, at least there were nine adjournments from day and I.A.No.703 of 1990 was not finally disposed of. Though the notes-paper says request adjournments were granted, it can be presumed that adjournments would not been asked for on behalf of the petitioners herein having regard to the anxiety petitioners to have the LA disposed of earlier. Strangely, after hearing the arguments sides and after reserving orders on 29.11.1990, the District Judge passed Orders 12.12.1990 holding that the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and adjourning the I.A to a further date. Even thereafter, the matter was not finally disposed after three adjournments. It is under these circumstances, finding that the District was not in a mood to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him even though the provisions the Civil Procedure Code enjoin the exercise of the jurisdiction expeditiously in matters this kind, the petitioners have moved this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution and obtained stay of operation of the order of the District Judge in I.A.No.703 of 1990, interim injunction. 4. The facts narrated above will speak for themselves and no comments are required portray the conduct of the District Judge. One more factor required to be explained may be noted. We have seen that the respondent has taken a stand before the learned Munsif in I.ANo.489 of 1990 in O.S.No.157 of 1990 that she was in separate possession enjoyment of earmarked portion out of the suit property whereas in the suit filed in the District Court I.A.No.703 of 1990, the stand taken by the respondent was to the effect that she joint possession of the suit properties along with the first petitioner herein. In the affidavit now filed in this Court by the respondent seeking to vacate the interim has again stated: “I am in possession of 14.87 acres separately out of the total extent plaint Schedule”. This statement in the counter affidavit filed in this Court in C.M.P.No.5301 of 1991 is quite contrary and diametrically opposite to the statement made by affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.703 of 1990 for injunction. 5. Finding that the respondent has no case on merits, Mr.P.Ananthakrishnan Nair, counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioners were not justified in invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution when alter-native remedy available under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is true petitioners have remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure. When invoked such alternative remedy and finding that they could not get justice speedily only they have filed this Revision under Art.227 of the Constitution, and this is quite from the facts narrated above. Under such circumstances this Court is not remedy the situation. If Art.227 of the Constitution is not available to remedy situations this, I fail to understand under what better circumstances, Art.227 of the Constitution invoked. It may not be out of place to just point out that O.39, Rule 1 of the Code Procedure enumerates the circumstances under which temporary injunction can be Rule 3 directs the issue of notice to the opposite party before granting injunction event of grave urgency requiring grant of injunction without notice, the Court shall the reasons explaining the object of granting the injunction and Rule 3-A further Court to dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days. Inspite of all these precautions, the District Judge has thrown overboard all these principles and granted injunction, and adding insult to the injury, continued the injunction even though the process of Court by the plaintiff/ petitioner before him was clearly brought to his also established before him. 6. We have seen from the above facts that the respondent has no consistency in and the move of the respondent is nothing but an abuse of process of Court unfortunately the District Judge (Presiding Officer), has extended a helping hand. 7. 6. We have seen from the above facts that the respondent has no consistency in and the move of the respondent is nothing but an abuse of process of Court unfortunately the District Judge (Presiding Officer), has extended a helping hand. 7. I have no hesitation to hold that the Court below deliberately refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not disposing of I.A.No.703 of 1990 after granting injunction contrary to the provisions of 0.39, Rules 3 and 3-A of the Code of Civil From the facts narrated above, there is absolutely no justification to continue the injunction. Therefore, I set aside the ex parte interim injunction granted by the Court. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed with exemplary costs for the process of Court by the respondent herein. The cost is fixed at Rs.2,500. Petition allowed.