Judgement The 3 (three) appellants were elected as Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer respectively of respondent No. 1 (Association of Scientific and Technical Officers, ONGC) in the election held on 18-12-92. 2. The respondents Nos. l, 2, 3 and 4 filed Title Suit No. 3/93 in the Court of Asstt. District Judge, Sibsagar for the declaration of the appellants election as illegal and void. The said respondents also prayed for temporary injunction in the suit. In that suit, the Returning Officer alone was impleaded as the sole defendant. The appellants filed application for impleading themselves as defendants in the suit; but, by order dated 12-1-93, the trial Court rejected their prayer and granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The injunction has affected their interest. Hence, they preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r), C.P.C. against the injunction. By order passed on 25-1-93, this Court has stayed the order of injunction. 3. Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 4, contended that since the appellants are not parties to the suit, they have not acquired the right to appeal and, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable and as such, liable to be dismissed. I cannot accept this contention because it is settled law that any party aggrieved by the order which is appealable, can file an appeal. In the instant case, the appellants filed application before the trial Court for adding themselves as party-defendants but, the trial Court rejected their prayer and simultaneously, granted an injunction to the plaintiffs which has affected their interest. Therefore, although the trial Court has rejected their prayer for being impleaded as defendants, the appellants are "party aggrieved" and, therefore, they can file appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r), C.P.C. And since their rights are affected, the injunction cannot be granted without hearing them. CIVIL REVISION NO. 25 OF 1993 4. By this petition u/S. 115, C.P.C., the petitioners have questioned the other part of the order dated 12-1-93 refusing to add them as defendants. By order dated 25-1-93, this Court has stayed the further proceeding in Title Suit No. 3/93 of the Asstt. District Judge, Sibsagar. Mr. Sahewala, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the injunction granted against the sole defendant, the Returning Officer, has affected the interest of the petitioners. By order dated 25-1-93, this Court has stayed the further proceeding in Title Suit No. 3/93 of the Asstt. District Judge, Sibsagar. Mr. Sahewala, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the injunction granted against the sole defendant, the Returning Officer, has affected the interest of the petitioners. This is, therefore, a case in which this Court should interfere with the exercise of revisional power. 5. In the result, the appeal and the revision are allowed. The impugned order dated 12-1-93 is wholly set aside. The trial Court is directed to add the petitioners as party defendants to the suit and decide the plaintiffs prayer for temporary injunction by giving an opportunity of hearing to them. No costs. Appeal allowed.