THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) ). * * * * ( 2 ) ). This Revision Application is filed for an appropriate direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge (J. D.), amreli below Exhibit 27 in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1992 passed on 4/10/1992 and also for vacating the status quo order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit 5 in that suit. ( 3 ) ). The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants for declaration that it is the tenant of the suit premises and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Along with the plaint an application Exhibit 5 was also filed on 5/08/1992 for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec, 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), restraining the defendant and/or its servants, agents or nominees from making any construction over the land belonging to the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge on the same day, passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo and by issuing notice to the other side making it returnable on 12/08/1992. ( 4 ) ). According to the defendant such a relief could not have been granted by the trial Court, since there were no sufficient grounds for it. Moreover, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 were also not complied with. The defendant, therefore, made an application on 1/09/1992 (Exhibit 27) for vacating ad-interim relief. The learned Judgd fixed the said application for hearing and ultimately by an order dated 6/10/1992 rejected that application in view of the order passed on application Exhibit 5 filed by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) ). Mr. Y. S. Lakhani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in rejecting application Exhibit 27 on the ground that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 were not required to be followed since the Court had not granted injunction as mentioned in Rule 3, but only status quo was ordered to be maintained. The learned Judge was of the opinion that when he had granted an order of status quo, it could rot be said that any injunction was granted by him. The learned Judge was of the opinion that when he had granted an order of status quo, it could rot be said that any injunction was granted by him. It was, therefore, not necessary for him to comply with the requirements laid down in Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code. ( 6 ) ). I am afraid, the view taken by the learned Judge is not in accordance with law. Granting of an order of status quo also can be said to be granting of injunction inasmuch as by granting status quo as prevailing on a particular day, the parties to the suit or at least one of the parties to the suit against whom such a direction is given, is restrained, by an injunction not to deal with the property in the manner the party likes. Therefore, Mr. Lakhani is right in submitting that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 would be attracted when the Court granted an order of status quo. Mr. Lakhani is also right that in case the trial Court was satisfied that it was a fit case for granting ex-parte ad-interim relief, it was bound to follow the procedure by recording reasons and also by directing the applicant, i. e; the plaintiff to comply with the requirements laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of proviso to Rule 3. If the above requirements are not fulfilled, the order of injunction cannot be said to be in consonance with law. .