JUDGMENT On 10th June, 1999, an order was passed by us directing the learned Chief Judge-in-Charge of the City Civil Court at Calcutta to submit a report as to whether insertion and/or correction made in the original plaint in Title Suit No. 397/99 was so made after grant of interim order of injunction passed by the Trial Court or not, within a specified period of them. A report has now been submitted by the Chief Judge-in-Charge of the City Civil Court at Calcutta saying that such insertion was made after the interim order was passed in the said suit without the leave of the Court. For his reason, we feel that a thorough enquiry must be held by the Chief Judge-in-Charge of the City Civil Court at Calcutta to find out who was responsible for insertion of the word. “Park Street” Police Station instead of Taltola Police Station in the original plaint in Title Suit No. 397/99 and take necessary stern action against the person who will be hold responsible for such insertion of the word in the plaint. 2. Now we take up the hearing of the appeal. 3. This appeal has been preferred against an interim order passed by the learned Chief Judge, 9th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 397/99. By the said order the Trial Court has granted an interim order of injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo as on that date which will remain in force till 16th April, 1999. It is not in dispute that subsequently the interim order granted by the Trial Court by the said impugned order has stood extended form time to time and the same is still continuing. 4. We have heard Mr. Dasgupta, appearing on behalf of the defendant/appellant and Mr. Trivedi for the plaintiff/respondent. In our view the Trial Court, was not justified in granting and interim order in the manner indicated above for two reasons. 5. It is not in dispute that two suits were filed by the plaintiff/respondents being Title Suit Nos. 223-224 of 1999 for declaration and injunction before the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. It is also not in dispute that prayer for interim order was refused by the Trial Court in the aforesaid two suits. 5. It is not in dispute that two suits were filed by the plaintiff/respondents being Title Suit Nos. 223-224 of 1999 for declaration and injunction before the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. It is also not in dispute that prayer for interim order was refused by the Trial Court in the aforesaid two suits. Without referring to the said order refusing to grant interim order in the earlier two suits, the plaintiff has filed the present suit being Title Suit No. 397/99 before the 9th Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta and obtained the interim order which is under trial now. Be it mentioned herein, the plaintiff in the earlier two suits categorically alleged in the plaint that the cause of action arose within the P.S. Park Street whereas in the present suit the plaintiff, has alleged that the cause of action arose in Taltola Police Station which was corrected after the interim order of injunction was granted. The plaintiff that has been produced before us by the learned Advocate for the appellants show that there has been an insertion to the following effect:- “Instead of Taltola Police Station, it would be Park Street Police Station.” 6. The business of the Court shows that if the case if filed in respect of “Park Street” Police Station, the same shall be heard by the 5th Bench whereas if the suit is filed in respect of “Taltola Police Station”, the same should go to the 9th Bench of the Civil City Court at Calcutta. This is one aspect of the matter. 7. The order aspect is that suppressing the fact that prayer for interim order was refused by the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit Nos. 223-224/99, the present interim order has been obtained by the plaintiff who were some of the plaintiff in the aforesaid two suits. 8. Secondly, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Shiv Kr. Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 (3) SCC 161 , the Trial Court was not justified in granting ex-parte interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. 8. Secondly, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Shiv Kr. Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 (3) SCC 161 , the Trial Court was not justified in granting ex-parte interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. The Apex Court of our country in that decision has clearly laid down the principal that whenever a Court considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to the other side, it must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed. In view of the aforesaid principal laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we had to peruse the order under appeal in this Court. From a plain reading of a said order, we do not find that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision had been followed by the Trial Court for the purpose of granting an ex parte order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. That being the position, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Trial Court is now directed to dispose of the application for injunction on merits and in accordance with law. The interim order granted by the Trial Court stands vacated. 9. We are informed by the learned Advocate for the appellant that they have not yet filed the objection and the reply. Accordingly, the company is directed to file their written objection to the application for injunction within a period of ten days from date and reply thereto, if any be filed three days thereafter. The Trial Court is directed to decide and dispose of the application for injunction within a period of three weeks from date positively. 10. It is needless to say that now the suit is to be heard by Bench No. 5 and not by Bench No. 9 in view of the subsequent insertion of the Police Station as was concerned in the present case is the Park Street Police Station. 10. It is needless to say that now the suit is to be heard by Bench No. 5 and not by Bench No. 9 in view of the subsequent insertion of the Police Station as was concerned in the present case is the Park Street Police Station. However, the vacation of the interim order does not affect the plaintiffs/respondents from proceeding with the application for injunction on merits and the Trial Court shall decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. 12. In view of the order passed in the appeal itself, the application for injunction filed in connection with the said appeal has now become infructuous and the same is dispose of as infructuous. There will be no order as to costs. Let xerox certified copy of this order be maid available to the learned Advocate for the parties, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible.