Judgment :- 1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2418 of 1995 is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, In I.A. No. 1731 of 1995 in O.S. No. 1471 of 1995. The suit is filed by the respondent herein for an injunction restraining the petitioner from in any manner interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property or the ingress and egress from the suit property to the main gate and preventing any movement of goods by means of a permanent injunction. In the application, the respondent prayed for an interim injunction on the same lines. The matter came up before court for orders on 15-9-1995. It is stated by the petitioner that at the time when the application was called in the open court, his counsel made a representation that he would file vakalat for the petitioner herein that he may be heard in the matter before any orders are passed. According to the petitioner, the District Munsif ignored that representation and passed an order of interim injunction. But, according to the Respondent when the petitioners counsel made a representation, he did not have vakalat and he told the court that the Managing Director of the petitioner company was out of the country. The matter was, according to the respondent, adjourned by one hour and taken up at 03.30 but at that time, according to him, there was no representation for the petitioner and no vakalat was filed. Thereafter, the court passed the interim orders. It is not in dispute that the petitioners counsel had filed a vakalat at 04.00 PM in the Court of the District Munsif. According to the petitioner, the Managing Director had left certain vakalats signed by him with his counsel as already another suit was pending in the court. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case, to go into the conflicting averments made by the parties in this case with regard to that aspect of the matter. 2. In so far as the order of the court is concerned it reads as follows:— “Records perused. Heard. Prima facie and the balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. Records reveal that the petitioner has sufficient cause to file this suit and the petition seeking for interim relief. Hence, in the interest of justice, an ad interim injunction is granted for a short period till 29-9-1995. Heard. Prima facie and the balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. Records reveal that the petitioner has sufficient cause to file this suit and the petition seeking for interim relief. Hence, in the interest of justice, an ad interim injunction is granted for a short period till 29-9-1995. Notice 29-9-95”. 3. It is apparent that the order does not satisfy the requirements of Order 39 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure. Under the said Rule, if an order of interim injunction is to be granted before notice of the application is given to the opposite party, the court must be satisfied that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay and therefore, an order should be passed immediately. The proviso also sets out certain conditions. It is not necessary to refer to the same for the purpose of this order. Suffice it to point out that the court has not stated in the order under revision that the object of the application for the injunction would be defeated by ordering notice to the opposite party and a delay being incurred thereby. Without such satisfaction having been recorded by the court, it ought not to have passed the order of ad interim injunction. 4. This Court has been repeatedly passing judicial orders pointing out the mandatory language used in Order 39, Rules 3, and the necessary of the subordinate judiciary to adhere to the Rule and strictly comply with the same before an order of injunction is passed. In fact, this court has also passed strictures on certain officials, who had not complied with the Rule. There is also an Administrative Circular issued by this court in P.D is 88/90 that the subordinate judiciary must strictly comply with the provisions of Order 39, Rules 3 and 3-A Code of Civil Procedure. It is very unfortunate that many a Subordinate Judge are violating not only the Rules but also an Administrative Circular issued by this Court even though disciplinary action has been taken against some members of the Subordinate Judiciary for not complying with the Rule and not obeying the administrative circular. It is one other instance of such disobedience on the part of the Principal District Munsif. 5. Apart from granting an order of ad interim injunction, the District Munsif went one step further and passed immediately an order granting police aid to the respondent herein. It is one other instance of such disobedience on the part of the Principal District Munsif. 5. Apart from granting an order of ad interim injunction, the District Munsif went one step further and passed immediately an order granting police aid to the respondent herein. That order reads as follows:— “Records perused. Heard. In the interest of justice, Police aid is granted if necessary. Accordingly, petition is allowed”. 6. In one sense, the order is unworkable as it reads that police aid is granted, if necessary. So, the necessity of police aid is to be decided by the party and is not to be decided by the court. In such circumstances, the District Munsif, ought not to have passed such an order. Further, police aid cannot be granted simultaneously with an order of injuntion. Only if the court is satisfied that the order of injunction passed by it is not obeyed by the other party and the party, who has secured the order, is not in a position to enjoy the benefits of the order because of the conduct of the other party and police interference is absolutely necessary, the court can grant an order of police aid. In this case, the District Munsif has thrown to winds all principles of law and justice and passed an order of police aid as if it should automatically follow and attach itself to an order of injunction whenever the civil court passed an order of injunction. The order granting police aid is wholly unsustainable and requires to be set aside. As I have already pointed out, the order passed in I.A. No. 1731 of 1991 granting interim injunction is unsustainable in law and has to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that his client is a tenant in the suit premises occupying first floor and the ingress and egress to the premises is prevented by the petitioner herein. It is submitted by learned counsel that if the order of interim injunction passed by the trial court is vacated, it will not be possible for the respondent to get into the premises of which he is admittedly a tenant. Whether the said statement is correct or not, I am of the opinion that it is necessary to protect the interest of the respondent in view of the fact that disputes have already arisen between the parties. Whether the said statement is correct or not, I am of the opinion that it is necessary to protect the interest of the respondent in view of the fact that disputes have already arisen between the parties. Without going into the truth of the allegation made by the respondent that the petitioner is preventing the ingress and egress of the respondent to the portion of the property which it is occupying as a tenant, I requested the counsel appearing for the petitioner herein to find out from his client, whose representative (Vice President, Personnel and HRD), is present in court, whether he would agree not to prevent the respondents ingress and egress to the property till the disposal of I.A. No. 1731 of 1995 by the Principal District Munsif, on its merits. Learned counsel after consulting the representative of his client has assured that his client will not in any manner interfere with the access of the respondent to the suit property by way of ingress and egress, untill the disposal of I.A. No. 1731 of 1995 by the Principal District Munsif Coimbatore. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. I.A. No. 1732 of 1995 is dismissed. I.A. No. 1731 of 1995 is remanded to the Court of the First Additional District Munsif for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner shall file his counter in I.A. No. 1731 of 1995 in the Court of the District Munsif on or before 6-11-1995. 9. In the interest of justice, I am transferring I.A. No. 1731 of 1995 and O.S. No. 1471 of 1995 to the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, lest there should be any apprehension of failure of justice. The said officer shall hear both parties and dispose of the application on or before 1-12-1995 on its merits. There will be no order as to costs.