Judgment :- The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4327 of 1995 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras has preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In many aspects, this is indeed, a very strange civil revision petition. This revision is against the order dated 6-7-1995 and I.A. No. 8729 of 1995 in the above said suit. The said I.A. seeks for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants / respondents from evicting the plaintiff except in accordance with law. When the I.A. originally came up before the Court below on 29-6-1995, a counsel filed Vakalath for the 1st respondent therein on that day itself and sought time to file Vakalath for the 2nd respondent also. So, the Court below adjourned the matter to 6-7-95 to enable the said counsel to file Vakalat for the 2nd respondent and also to file counter on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents. On 6-7-1995, the order that was passed (which alone has been challenged in this civil revision petition) runs as follows : "Vakalath for R.2, Notice to R.1, time extended 25-8-1995". Strangely, it is against the above said order, the above C.R.P. has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is found that no order affecting the rights of any party has actually been passed by the impugned order in the I.A. Actually speaking, for filing counter, time was extended till 25-8-1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved mainly by this extension to a long time after 6-7-1995, that is, to 25-8-1995. If really he is aggrieved by such a long extension, he could have represented the same to the Court below itself immediately after the pronouncement of the abovesaid order and could have asked the Court below to give only a short extension for the respondents therein to file counter. Even if the Court below was not then inclined to grant a short extension, he could have subsequently filed a petition to advance the hearing of the I. A. All these apart, I find, not even a single ground has been taken in this revision, taking exception to the above said long extension of time granted by the Court below. Even if the Court below was not then inclined to grant a short extension, he could have subsequently filed a petition to advance the hearing of the I. A. All these apart, I find, not even a single ground has been taken in this revision, taking exception to the above said long extension of time granted by the Court below. At any rate, even assuming that such a long extension of the time for filing counter is erroneous, I do not think Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be invoked for such an error which could have been subsequently corrected by filing an Interlocutory Application for advancing the hearing of the I.A. Further, it is also not clear why the petitioner has not resorted to the remedy that may be available under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the above said order dated 6-7-1995, but chose to invoke Article 227. 2. While dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held in the decision reported in (Waryam Singh v. Amar Nath) thus (Para 14) :- "This power of Superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors ." (Emphasis supplied) 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he should have been given, ex parte interim injunction in the above said I.A. even on 29-6-1995. But, it must be remembered that as per Order 39; Rule 3, C.P.C., the Court shall "in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party. Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant" to conform to certain formalities in clauses (a) and (b) of the said proviso. So, the ordinary rule is that before granting injunction, notice has to go to the respondent. So, the ordinary rule is that before granting injunction, notice has to go to the respondent. Only in the abovesaid exceptional case provided in the above said proviso, ex parte injunction could be granted. When the Court below has chosen not to grant any ex parte injunction, that by itself will not entitle the petitioner to move this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is absolutely no merit in the above C.R.P. and hence it is not admitted but, dismissed. Revision dismissed.