Judgment :- 1. The 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 429 of 1994 is the petitioner herein. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 705 of 1994 in O.S. No. 429 of 1994 = The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties under the 1st defendant and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. In the suit, the 3rd defendant filed an application. I.A. No. 705 of 1994 for an interim injunction, restraining the respondent/plaintiff from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the 3rd defendant till the disposal of the suit. When this petition came-up for hearing, the trial court ordered notice to the respondent/plaintiff. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the 3rd defendant. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/3rd defendant the suit property originally belonged to one Bodi Maistry, who is the father of the plaintiff. After his death, his three sons, viz. Kannan (D1), Govindarajan (D2) and one P.M. Chinnappa inherited the properties belonging to the said Bodi Maistry. They were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties without any regular partition. The 3rd defendant purchased the share belonging to Govindarajan and Chinnappa under a registered sale deed dated 25-7-1994. The remaining 1/3rd share belongs to the 1st defendant and his two sons. As per the sale deed dated 7-7-1994 possession of about 0.96 cents was handed over to the petitioner/3rd defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff filed the above suit suppressing the real facts and falsely stating that he is a cultivating tenant under the 1st defendant and he is in possession enjoyment of the suit land. He neither filed any document to show that he is a cultivating tenant nor did he prove his possession. Therefore, the trial court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff which was sought for in I.A. No. 408 of 1994 and ordered only notice. The 3rd defendant also filed a counter in the said application. 3. He neither filed any document to show that he is a cultivating tenant nor did he prove his possession. Therefore, the trial court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff which was sought for in I.A. No. 408 of 1994 and ordered only notice. The 3rd defendant also filed a counter in the said application. 3. The 3rd defendant states that the respondent in preventing him from carrying out the agricultural operation in his land with the help of his henchmen. Because of that he was unable to raise any crop in the suit land. The 3rd defendant submitted that if he is not permitted to transplant the seedlings into the suit land, he would be put to great loss and hardship. Therefore, in order to prevent the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land, he came forward with the above said application under Order 39, Rule 1 of C.P.C. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the present revision is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India since the trial court without considering the case put forward by the 3rd defendant on merits and without looking into the documents ordered notice. According to the learned counsel such an order passed by the trial court, without assigning any reason and without pursuing the records appears to be illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and be is a cultivating tenant entitled to the protection under the Cultivating Tenant Protection Act. The plaintiff filed four documents along with the plaint to prove the title of the 1st defendant and kist receipts to prove his possession through the 1st defendant as cultivating tenant. Since the defendants interfered with the possession, became forward with an application for interim injunction and notice was order in the said application. The sale deeds produced by the 3rd defendant are sham and nominal. Apparently they came into existence subsequently and after receipt of suit notice. The name of Bodi Maistry was not mentioned in any of the documents filed by the 3rd defendant. No sale deed was executed by Kannan though the sale deed was created with his sons. The property was purchased by the 1st defendant in court auction sale in E.P. No. 93 of 1975. The name of Bodi Maistry was not mentioned in any of the documents filed by the 3rd defendant. No sale deed was executed by Kannan though the sale deed was created with his sons. The property was purchased by the 1st defendant in court auction sale in E.P. No. 93 of 1975. In O.S. No. 228 of 1974 and took delivery of possession on 12-10-1975. Kannan is having the delivery at hakshi apart from other documents. It also contains the details of the property sold. Bodi Maistry had no prior title. Kannan created lease in favour of the plaintiff and he is in possession of the suit land and cultivating the same. Thereafter the plaintiff purchased the suit property from Kannan Maistry on 27-4-1974 by a registered sale deed. Since there was some mistake with regard to one boundary, a rectification deed dated 27-12.1994 was obtained. According to the provisions contained in the Specific Relief Act and Civil Procedure Code, I.A. No. 705 of 1994 is not maintainable. The prayer in the said pettion cannot be granted o the defendant. Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C. cannot, be invoked by a defendant in a suit as the rule contemplates filing interim injunction application only by the plaintiff. So far as Order 39, Rule is concerned, a defendant cannot file the present injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1(b)(c). In the circumstances it was submitted that the trial court was correct in ordering notices in the application filed by the 3rd defendant. 6. I have heard the rival submissions 7. The fact remains that the plaintiff herein filed the above suit for a declaration that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit land under the 1st defendant. In the above suit, the 3rd defendant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. for an interim injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The trial court ordered notice to the respondent. The plaintiff has also filed another application for interim injunction against the defendant in I.A. No. 705 of 1974, restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff states that he is having documents to prove his title. The 3rd defendant states that he is also having documents to prove his title. The plaintiff has also filed another application for interim injunction against the defendant in I.A. No. 705 of 1974, restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff states that he is having documents to prove his title. The 3rd defendant states that he is also having documents to prove his title. At this stage it is not possible to consider whose title is valid. In order to obtain on order of interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. the petitioner must prove that he is saving a prime facie case, the balance of convenience is in the favour and if the order is not granted, he would suffer irreparable injury and hardship. In the present case, the plaintiff is already on record and, therefore, without ordering notice to him and without hearing him, no order can be passed in the application filed by the 3rd defendant. It is under such circumstance notice was ordered to the plaintiff. In fact, even in the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 of C.P.C. noticed was ordered to the defendants. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trail court was incorrect in ordering notice in the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. by the 3rd defendant. When the parties are already on record, without notice is all the parties it is not possible to pass an interim order in favour of one of the parties in the suit. Under such circumstances, the lower court is directed to dispose of both the applications filed by the plaintiffs well as the 3rd defendant together after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. At this state, this Court does not want to interfere with the order passed by the trail court in ordering notice in the application filed by the 3rd defendant. In that view of the mater, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.