JUDGMENT B. Dikshit, J. - This is a defendant's First Appeal from Order directed against one-ex parte ad-interim injunction passed by the District Judge, Tehri. 2. Counsel for the parties agreed that the appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. 3. The essential facts are that the plaintiff filed suit for possession of a piece of land and sought decree for mesne profits against the defendants. The plaintiff moved an application for temporary injunction with the suit for restraining the defendants from raising the constructions over the land in dispute, during pendency of suit. The court below by the impugned order dated 30th September, 1991 has granted temporary injunction ex-parte restraining the defendants from making constructions on the disputed land. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the order is liable to be set aside for the following three reasons: (i) The court below has not assigned reason in its order while granting an ex-parte temporary injunction. (ii) The temporary injunction could not be granted as no relief for permanent injunction is sought in the suit, (iii) The order suffers from procedural error as Order 39 Rule 3 proviso (a) and 3A CPC have not been complied with in granting ex-parte injunction. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. I find that the court below has recorded its conclusion and issued an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from making constructions, without assigning any reason required to be recorded under Order 39 Rule 3, which reads as follows: 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. 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 post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction 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. 6. It is apparent from the perusal of the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC that where the court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to opposite party, it is necessary for court to record reasons to the effect that the object of granting the injunction will be defeated by delay. In present case the court below granted an ex-parte injunction without giving notice to defendant/appellant and without recording reasons which were essential in view of proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held in case of Road Flying Carrier and another Vs. The General electric company of India Ltd., AIR 1990 All 134 , that the reasons must find place in the order ultimately passed by the court while exercising power under Order 39 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure. The Division Bench deciding that case was of the view that mere presence of material on the record is not sufficient. The law requires recording of reasons but it must also be shown that the court has applied its mind to that material. The Division Bench deciding that case was of the view that mere presence of material on the record is not sufficient. The law requires recording of reasons but it must also be shown that the court has applied its mind to that material. In concluding part of the case, the Division Bench observed as follows: Before parting with this appeal, it must be stressed that the subordinate courts are granting temporary injunction without having any regard to the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure. It is of utmost importance to note that an ex-parte order of injunction is an exception, the general rule being that order be passed only after hearing both the parties. It is only in rare cases where the court finds that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay, the court can issue an injunction ex-parte but that too only after recording reasons therefore .Ex-parte injunction is not routine matter and it must be borne in mind by the court below. In view of principles of law enunciated in the case of Road Flying Carrier v. General Electric Company of India Ltd. (supra), the order of court below is bad in law for want of reasons and is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the language of Order 41 Rule 27(2) CPC is similar to that of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and as the Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1526 , has taken the view that such a provision about recording of reasons is directory the same principle of law is attracted and will be applicable in respect of orders passed in exercise of power under Order 39 Rule 3, and, therefore, absence of reasons will not vitiate the order passed by court below. The learned Counsel for respondents submitted it appears that aforesaid case of Supreme Court of India was not placed before Division Bench as the judgment does not refer to it. The argument is that had the case of Supreme Court of India been placed before the Division Bench which decided the case of Road Flying Carrier v. General Electric Company of India Ltd. (supra) it would have come to a different conclusion in respect of recording of the reasons. The argument is that had the case of Supreme Court of India been placed before the Division Bench which decided the case of Road Flying Carrier v. General Electric Company of India Ltd. (supra) it would have come to a different conclusion in respect of recording of the reasons. I am not inclined to accept the argument advanced. The context in which the recording of reasons has been considered by the Division Bench in view of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is different, from Order 41 Rule 27(2) Code of Civil Procedure. The Division Bench while considering recording of reason was dealing with the provision under which a temporary order passed was to effect the right of a party temporarily. The order has immediate impact on right of party to do a particular thing or not to do. It effects substantive right of parties. Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is different from Order 41 Rule 27(2) Code of Civil Procedure. The purpose for which the recording of reason is essential under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is different from purpose under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure. Which has to be discretionary power to have evidence on record in appeal in doing justice. 7. According to the view expressed by Supreme Court of India the object of the provision of Order 41 Rule 27(2) CPC is for keeping clear record of what weighed with the appellate court in allowing the additional evidence. Even the Supreme Court of India observed in that case, while holding the provision as directory, the desirability of recording reason and omission to record reason to be treated as serious defect. But considering the object for which Order 41 Rule 27(2) CPC has been enacted the Supreme Court of India under Order 41 Rule 27(2) of the CPC has held that provision to be directory. 8. But considering the object for which Order 41 Rule 27(2) CPC has been enacted the Supreme Court of India under Order 41 Rule 27(2) of the CPC has held that provision to be directory. 8. At this place it is worth mentioning that though Supreme Court of India has considered Order 41 Rule 27(2) CPC as directory, it also held "that it does not seen reasonable to think that the legislature intended that even though in the circumstances of a particular case it could be definitely ascertained from the record why the appellate court allowed additional evidence and it is clear that the power was properly exercised within the limitation imposed-by the first clause of the Rule, all that should be sought at naught merely because the provision in the second clause was not complied with". It was this reason which prevailed with the Supreme Court of India when it declared the provision of Order 41 Rule 27(2) CPC as directory. Order 39 Rule 3 is to be considered mandatory as issue of a temporary injunction directly affects the right of the defendants in enjoying the property as he wants to enjoy. In view of this material difference, the principles enunciated by Supreme Court of India with reference to Order 41 Rule 27(2) CPC declaring it directory, are inapplicable to Order 39 Rule 3 for recording reasons. It cannot be held directory. I agree with the view expressed by the Hon'ble Judges in the Division Bench and consider that in absence of reasons the impugned order granting ex-parte injunction is liable to be set aside. 9. Besides the view I have expressed above, I would like to point out that the court below has granted temporary injunction on the facts set out in an affidavit filed in support of application for temporary injunction. In the present case the relevant paragraph of affidavit has not been verified in the affidavit filed. Paragraph 16 of the affidavit which was relevant for grant of temporary injunction stands omitted in respect of verification made in affidavit. In view of this fact, it is another reason to set aside order of court below in the absence of material to justify the ex-parte injunction and the order of court below is liable to be set aside. 10. In view of this fact, it is another reason to set aside order of court below in the absence of material to justify the ex-parte injunction and the order of court below is liable to be set aside. 10. Learned Counsel for the parties agreed that so far the application in respect of temporary injunction is concerned, the defendant has filed his objection and it requires expeditious disposal by court below. The request appears to be reasonable. The plaintiff have raised the grievance that if temporary injunction is not granted the defendant will go on with the construction over disputed land which will result in an irreparable injury to plaintiff. As the request made by learned Counsel for opposite party appears to be reasonable, I direct that the parties shall appear before the court on the very first day when it re-opens after 'winter-vacation' and the court below will try to dispose of the application for temporary injunction within two weeks of the re-opening of the court. It will be open to the parties to lead evidence in support of their case for temporary injunction before the court below by filing necessary documents and affidavits, which they consider necessary to support their case. 11. The appeal is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for parties on payment of usual charges within three days.