JUDGMENT The petitioner's grievance in the petition is that the learned trial Court having granted an ex-parte injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, which is itself not maintainable, is sitting tight over the matter and is not hearing the matter bi-parte despite petitioner's repeated requests. Typed copies of the proceedings from the trial Court in support of such contention have been filed on record as Annex. P/4. On the perusal of the documents, we have found that unnecessary adjournments were granted by the trial Court. Once having granted the ex-parte injunction, it need not be stated that, the trial Court is duty bound to hear the matter at its earliest on the opposite side having put in its appearance. In view of the above, even the other side i.e. respondent No.1 cannot claim the protraction of the matter. We are, therefore, inclined to dispose of this petition without notice to the other side as the early disposal of the ex-parte injunction matter is the right of the petitioner. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with a short direction to the Court below to decide the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. as also the application under section 20 read with section 151 and order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. on 9th October 1993 itself, as it is stated at the bar by Shri Tripathi that 9th October 1993 is the next date fixed by the trial Court for the above purpose. With the above observations, the petition is finally disposed of.