Judgment P. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-defendant has filed this revision petition under Sec. 115, CPC feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2-4-97 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13/97 reversing the order dated 13-2-97 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J. D.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 19/96. ( 2 ) THE non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner-defendant seeking a relief that the petitioner-defendant be restrained from raising construction over the plot in dispute particularly in the area earmarked for the set-backs. It may be stated that the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in his order ordered for maintaining status quo in the set-back area of 10 ft. The case of the petitioner is that after passing of the above order maintaining status quo, the petitioner did not go ahead with any new construction but after lapse of long period after passing of the above order, the structure began to deteriorate. He, therefore, moved an application under Order 39, Rule 4, CPC seeking permission of the Court for carrying out a finishing work like plaster etc. , which was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the structure already made. The petitioner-defendant never intended to make any construction in the garb of the above application. The application was resisted by the plaintiff- non-petitioner. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 13-2-97 allowed the application of the petitioner-defendant and permitted the defendant to carry out necessary finishing work etc. for maintenance of the structure without making any new construction. The defendant was also asked to complete the same within a period of 15 days. The plaintiff-non-petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court by the impugned order reversed the order of the trial Court mainly on the ground that the trial Court committed an error in exercising its jurisdiction inasmuch as the case of the petitioner-defendant did not fall within the ambit of Order 39, Rule 4, CPC. The learned appellate Court categorically made reference to the fact that the defendant-petitioner had some grievance at the time of passing the impugned order which he now agitated by filing an application purporting to be under Order 39, Rule 4, CPC. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. The learned appellate Court categorically made reference to the fact that the defendant-petitioner had some grievance at the time of passing the impugned order which he now agitated by filing an application purporting to be under Order 39, Rule 4, CPC. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Prakash Tatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. D. Vyas for the non-petitioner. ( 4 ) MR. Tatia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the crux of the whole thing is that the petitioner-defendant wanted to take necessary steps in order to preserve the structure already made and regarding which the order of maintaining status quo was admittedly passed by the learned District Judge on 18-9-95. The learned trial Court took a very equitable view of the whole matter and passed necessary order giving relief to the petitioner-defendant at the same time without prejudicing the case of the non-petitioner-plaintiff. The learned appellate Court was not justified in reversing the above order without any rhyme or reason. The learned appellate Court took a very technical view of the whole matter without realising the fact that if the above permission was refused, the whole structure made by the petitioner-defendant may collapse causing him great financial loss. ( 5 ) MR. Vyas, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the above order. ( 6 ) I have considered the rival contentions. The question is not whether the petitioner-defendant ought to have been allowed an opportunity to take measures for protecting the above structure made by him regarding which there is a dispute between the parties. But the question was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court was competent to have passed the order, which was impugned by the plaintiff-non-petitioner before the learned appellate Court. I may refer to the proviso to Rule 4 of Order 39, CPC which says that when an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner-defendant has not stated whether there was any change in the circumstances of the case. The necessary repair like plaster etc. was even due when the Court passed the order maintaining status quo. It cannot be again said that after passing of the above order, the matter is still pending decision. However, I feel that there was no justification for the trial Court to have passed the above order because the above order does not fall within the proviso to Rule 4 of Order 39, CPC as there has been no change in the circumstances. The circumstances were almost the same when the order maintaining status quo was passed by the learned Addl. District Judge. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. I feel inclined to give direction to the trial Court to expedite the disposal of the case as early as possible. ( 8 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, the revision petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.