Judgment Asok Kumar Chakravarty, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against order dated 4.10.91 passed by the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas (North) in Misc. Appeal No. 203 of 1991 granting ex parte interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant reversing the order of the learned Munsif dated 26.9.91 in Title Suit No. 330(A) of 1991. Opposite party plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from constructing and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff oppsite party in the land in suit. Plaintiff opposite party thereafter filed an application for injunction with a prayer for ad interim order of injunction for restraining the defendant petitioner from making any construction in the suit land and disturb the possession of the plaintiff in any manner. By an order dated 26.9.91 learned Munsif rejected the plaintiff's prayer for ad interim injunction and fixed 4.10.91 for hearing of the petition. 2. Plaintiff opposite party moved the court of appeal against the said order and the learned District Judge by his order dated 4.10.91 allowed the application and passed ex parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in any manner with the possession of the plaintiff in the property described in the schedule of the petition until further orders on the ground that he was of the opinion that this was a fit case for granting an order of injunction and that delay was likely to defeat the object of granting injunction. 3. Mr. Kazi Md. Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners defendants submitted that the order by itself is liable to be set aside as no reason has been given in the order in justification for passing such an order of ad interim injunction. He further contended that the guidelines for granting ad interim order of injunction laid down in the case of D. R. Chawla and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in (1993) 3 sec 162 were not at all followed. It was held that in passing such an ex parte order of injunction the court should consider all relevant factors including as to how the object of granting injunction shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed. It was held that in passing such an ex parte order of injunction the court should consider all relevant factors including as to how the object of granting injunction shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed. He further drew my attention to paragraph 34 of the said decision where in discussing the proviso of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was held the proviso was introduced to provide a condition, where court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, being of the opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated by delay. The condition so introduced is that the court "shall record the reasons" why an ex parte order of injunction was being passed in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this background, the requirement for recording reasons for grant of ex parte injunction, cannot be held to be a mere formality. This requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to exercise either under a statute or under the common law must be informed why instead of following the requirement of Rule 3, the procedure prescribed under the proviso has been followed." 4. In another part of the same decision it was held that Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code attracts the principle, that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. 5. Mr. Sadananda Ganguli, learned Advocate for the opposite party, however contended that the order was passed at a time when the court was going to be closed for long Puja Vacation and there was hardly any time for issuing any notice upon the opposite party and accordingly the learned court of appeal was compelled to pass such an ex parte order although in the opinion of Mr. Ganguly no specific reason can be said to have been given by the learned District Judge in allowing the appeal, still then he said that at least he has considered the submissions of the learned Advocate, the allegations made in the petition and the affidavit and the annexures as would appear from the order itself. Mr. Ganguly no specific reason can be said to have been given by the learned District Judge in allowing the appeal, still then he said that at least he has considered the submissions of the learned Advocate, the allegations made in the petition and the affidavit and the annexures as would appear from the order itself. Mr. Ganguly frankly conceded that he is not actually saying anything against the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court but only stated that the said guidelines were not formulated at the time when the order was passed. 6. Be that as it may, upon hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates for both sides and upon consideration of the latest law on the point as laid down by the Supreme Court, this court has no other alternative but to hold that the order passed by the learned court of appeal having not given any reasons whatsoever justifying the passing of such an interim order of injunction the order cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Munsif shall now hear the application on merit and dispose of the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of communication of this order without granting any adjournment to either of the parties and shall give seven days time to the petitioner/defendants to file their objections, if any, against the application filed by the plaintiff. The parties will maintain status quo of the suit property till the disposal of the application by the learned Munsif. 8. The revisional application is thus allowed. 9. There will be no order as to costs. 10. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either of the parties in the suit and the learned Munsif shall make his own finding considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case in disposing of the application for injunction within the time framed by this court. 11. As prayed for, let xerox copies of this order be handed over to the learned Advocates for the parties on usual undertaking. Application allowed.