MANMOHAN SARIN, J. (ORAL) ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this revision petition aggrieved by the orders dated 5. 8. 1997 and 14. 8. 1997, passed by the civil Judge who by order dated 5. 8. 1997, had allowed the application of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and directed the S. H. O. to remove the generators installed in the petitioner s premises. ( 2 ) THE petitioner runs a Banquet Hall by the name of Amitabah Banquet Hall in Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The Banquet Hall is used for marriages and parties. The petitioner installed a generator on the 2nd floor to ensure uninterrupted power supply. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9, tiled the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain the petitioner from running the generator and for demolition of the unauthorized construction allegedly carried out. It was claimed that running of the heavy generator caused nuisance and noise pollution. Restraint was also sought against throwing of garbage etc. ( 3 ) THE learned Civil judge in his order dated 5. 8. 1997, has lamented on the in-action of the respondent-MCD as well as the fact that the petitioner was evading service and could not be served. The learned Civil Judge in fact vide an order dated 31. 7. 1997, had already proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. On an application of the petitioner, the order dated 31. 7. 1997, proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, was set aside. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, for recalling the order dated 5. 8. 1997, by which the S. H. O. had been directed to remove the generator installed in the premises. ( 4 ) THE precise grievance of the petitioner is that once the order for ex-parte proceedings was set aside, it was incumbent upon the trial court to suspend the impugned order dated 5. 8. 1997, which had been passed in the absence of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted before me that the impugned order dated 5. 8. 1997, has brought the business of the petitioner to a stand still. It is also submitted dat the impugned orders are in non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. ( 5 ) IT was open to the petitioner to assail the order dated 5. 8. 8. 1997, has brought the business of the petitioner to a stand still. It is also submitted dat the impugned orders are in non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. ( 5 ) IT was open to the petitioner to assail the order dated 5. 8. 1997 in appeal. The petitioner, however, chose not to do so and instead moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, for its recall and/or vacation. The learned Civil Judge has already fixed 1. 9. 1997, for disposal to the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, of which notice has been issued to the respondents. It is also stated before me that due to practical difficulties involved in removal of the generator, the S. H. O. has reported to the Court that the said generator cannot be removed prior to 1. 9. 1997 and in fact the said generator has been sealed and no action is contemplated to remove the same before 1. 9. 1997. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondent has submitted that running of the generatore has been a perpetual source of nuisance to the residents there. It is argued that the very installation is in contravention of rules and regulations in a residential building where the Banquet Hall is run. Counsel for the MCD has submitted that petitioner has not obtained the licence/permission for running of the Banquet Hall. Counsel for the respondent-DESU submits that permission has also not been taken for running of the generator. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the contentions of the counsel for the respondents-MCD and DESU that licence/permission is required either for running a Banquet Hall or for installing and operating the generator of 125 KVA. Counsel for the respondent in fact sumbits that there are two generators, which are presently installed. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for respondent Nos. 8 and 9 submits that he would now tile reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 4 OPC, pending before the trial court on or before 1. 9. 1997 and in any case, advance copy would be given to the counsel for the petitioner by 26. 8. 1997. ( 8 ) IT is also admitted before me that there is regular supply of electricity to the premises, is otherwise available and the generator is used only when there is a break down of DESU power supply. 9. 1997 and in any case, advance copy would be given to the counsel for the petitioner by 26. 8. 1997. ( 8 ) IT is also admitted before me that there is regular supply of electricity to the premises, is otherwise available and the generator is used only when there is a break down of DESU power supply. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the nature of allegations and in particular the contention of the respondents that the petitioner does not have the licence to run the Banquest Hell or permission to operate the generator. Though the petitioner asserts that no such licence/permission is required. Further, it is not a case where there is disconnection of electric supply since generator is required to be used in the event of failure of normal electric supply, which is available. The non suspension of the order dated 5,8. 1997 while setting aside the order for ex parte proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated by material irregularity or failure to exercise jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction and especially so, when the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code is fixed for hearing, at not a very far off date, but on 1. 9,1997 itself. The learned Civil Judge would ensure that the application is heard and is expeditiously disposed of without being influenced by any observations made either in this order or in the order dated 5. 8. 1998. Revision pertion is dismissed with the aforedsaided observations and direction.