R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT petitioner Lokesh Kumar Sahu filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court inter-alia submitting that he was an elected President of the Board of Directors and in the meeting convened he was resolved to be illegally removed, therefore the resolution be quashed, annulled or set aside and the status of the present petitioner be declared. Along with the dispute the applicant/petitioner filed an application seeking grant of ad interim injunction. The said application was ex parte granted by the Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Durg. It is however to be noted that the respondents K. K. Rao, Avdesh Kumar Yadev, C. S. Pasene, R. P. Rao and S. K. Rajak took up the matter before the Co-operative Tribunal. In the revision certain new facts were incorporated and certain new evidence was annexed. After hearing the parties, learned Co-operative Tribunal granted revision, set aside the order passed by the Asst. Registrar and rejected the petitioner's application. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal the petitioner has come to this Court. ( 2 ) I have heard the parties. ( 3 ) SHRI Kishore Bahaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal is patently illegal and bad in law because it has relied upon certain facts, circumstances and evidence which were never brought to the notice of the trial Court, no application was filed by the applicants before Co-operative Tribunal and no opportunity to meet the said facts or controvert the said documents was given by the Co-operative Tribunal to the present petitioner. He further submits that Co-operative Tribunal even if, was of the opinion that present was not a fit case for grant of ex parte ad interim order, then on the legal foundation it could set aside the order and should have required the trial Court to give proper opportunity to the parties with a further direction that the trial Court shall re-decide the matter in accordance with law. ( 4 ) SHRI Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 conceded to this position and submits that the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal may be set aside, so also the ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court to be annulled and Asst. ( 4 ) SHRI Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 conceded to this position and submits that the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal may be set aside, so also the ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court to be annulled and Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Durg, be required to re-decide the matter in accordance with law. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, Shri N. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the present is not a matter where any interference can be made by this Court, conceding to the legal position that new facts, new documents and new circumstances which were never brought to the notice of the Court of first instance, the revisional or appellate Court could not take note of those without an application for taking those on records as additional evidence that too after giving an opportunity to the present petitioner, he however submits that as the facts were writ large, the revisional Court was justified in taking note of those facts and was justified in setting aside the ex parte ad interim order and rejecting the present petitioner's application. He submits that there is no scope for any interference in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) THERE can be no dispute about legal proposition that every Court has jurisdiction to grant ad interim ex parte injunction unless forbidden by law. A Court is also entitled to grant ex parte ad interim injunction, on particular facts projected and submitted before the particular Court, the said Court may or may not grant ex parte ad interim injunction, but if the Court on the facts available to it or facts submitted before it by the party seeking injunction, is satisfied that the case in hand, is a case for ex parte ad interim injunction then such Court would be entitled to grant ex parte ad interim injunction. The correctness, validity and propriety of such an ex parte ad interim injunction can be challenged by any person aggrieved either by filing an appeal or by making an application before the Court or by filing reply before the same Court inter alia pleading that ex parte ad interim injunction should not be continued and be vacated. The correctness, validity and propriety of such an ex parte ad interim injunction can be challenged by any person aggrieved either by filing an appeal or by making an application before the Court or by filing reply before the same Court inter alia pleading that ex parte ad interim injunction should not be continued and be vacated. If the second procedure is adopted, then the Court which had granted the ad interim ex parte injunction would be called upon to see the facts, circumstances and the documents submitted by the aggrieved party. After hearing both the parties the said Court may or may not confirm or continue the injunction. When particular facts are brought to the notice of the trial Court, then the Court of the first instance is required to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances into consideration. But when against an ex parte ad interim injunction an appeal/revision is filed or then the revisional/appellate Court is required to look into the correctness, validity and propriety of the ex parte ad interim order and that on the material available before the trial Court, was the trial Court justified in granting ex parte injunction. It has to put itself into the position of the trial Court and see whether under the given facts and circumstances an ad interim ex parte injunction could be granted or not. ( 7 ) IF any party aggrieved by the ex parte ad interim injunction or by-party injunction wants the appellate/revisional Court to take into consideration certain facts or documents, then the Code of Civil Procedure, so also the Co-operative Societies Act provides the particular procedure. It is not correct to say that every fact brought to the notice of the appellate/revisional Court is to be taken into consideration. When a party relies upon particular facts, circumstances and evidence which were not brought to the notice of the trial Court by either side, then it has to make an application for taking the said facts or documents on record. Such an application cannot be allowed ex parte because by that time rights of the other party have already come into existence. A notice of such application has to be given to the other side, the other side may or may not concede to the said application. Such an application cannot be allowed ex parte because by that time rights of the other party have already come into existence. A notice of such application has to be given to the other side, the other side may or may not concede to the said application. If the other side concedes to the said application, then the Court may take into consideration the evidence and documents, but if the other side does not concede to the said application, then such an application is to be heard along with the merits of the matter. If the Court ultimately records a finding that such facts and documents are required to be taken on record as additional evidence or subsequent events, then after granting the said application, the appellate/revisional Court is obliged to give proper opportunity to the other side to rebut the evidence or in the alternative it may remit the matter to the trial Court with a direction to take into consideration the documents and evidence and send its findings or in the further alternative the appellate/revisional Court may set aside the order passed by the Subordinate Court and may remit the whole matter to the trial Court with a direction that it shall give proper opportunity to the other side and shall decide the matter afresh. ( 8 ) IT would be too much to say that the facts and circumstances which for the first time were brought to the notice of the revisional Court, could be taken note of by the said revisional Court without an application and without notice to the other side that the revisional Court was ready to rely upon the said documents and facts. The procedure adopted by the Co-operative Tribunal is unheard of. ( 9 ) NO Court is entitled to take the additional evidence and documents into consideration without giving, a notice of the same to the other side. If this is allowed to be done it would lead to a judicial anarchism because any Court behind the back of the party would receive certain documents and may pass an order contrary to the interest of the said party without issuing a notice to the said party. So far as the procedure adopted by the Co-operative Tribunal is concerned. I am unable to approve the same. So far as the procedure adopted by the Co-operative Tribunal is concerned. I am unable to approve the same. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is constrained to say that the Co-operative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in relying upon those documents and further facts and in rejecting the application. ( 10 ) THE Co-operative Tribunal should have seen that the trial Court did not finally dispose of the application for grant of ad interim injunction, it had simply issued an ex parte interim order. If the revisional Court was satisfied that present was a case where ad interim ex parte order should not have been passed then within the frame work of the law and the four corners of its jurisdiction it could set aside the order with a further direction to the trial Court/asst. Registrar that it should decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the evidence, the pleadings and the matters which are brought on the record of the trial Court. ( 11 ) THE argument of Shri Pandey, that by ad interim ex parte order the trial Court was creating a new state of affairs is concerned, the same being misconceived deserves rejection. When a party comes before the Court and says that an illegal resolution has been passed and in execution of the said resolution other party was trying to dispossess him or remove him from the office, therefore an ex parte interim order be granted, and the Court of the first instance is satisfied that emergencies, urgencies and exigencies, demand grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, then it cannot be said that the trial Court acts beyond its jurisdiction. ( 12 ) ON the facts submitted before the trial Court it would certainly be justified in issuing ex parte ad interim injunction. ( 12 ) ON the facts submitted before the trial Court it would certainly be justified in issuing ex parte ad interim injunction. ( 13 ) THE argument of Shri Pandey that this Court should not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should not detain this Court for a minute because under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court under its powers of superintendence is entitled to supervise the work functions of any Tribunal or Courts subordinate to the High Court and if the High Court finds illegalities in the orders passed by the Tribunals or Courts or if it appears to the High Court that illegalities are floating on the surface of the record or the order is patently wrong contrary to law or is against the procedure established by law, then instead of closing its eyes, having the sword of Justice in its hands the High Court must stripe at the root of injustice. ( 14 ) THE order passed by the Tribunal deserves to and is accordingly quashed. The ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the Asst. Registrar is restored. The respondents may file their reply before the Asst. Registrar. After giving due and proper opportunity to the parties, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies shall decide the matter in accordance with law. ( 15 ) THE petition is allowed with costs. The petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 5000. 00 as costs from the respondent No. 3, who is the only contesting respondent. If the amount is not deposited by the respondent No. 3 either in this Court or before the Asst. Registrar within four weeks from today then it shall be taken to be a serious lapse on the part of the respondent No. 3 and contempt of the lawful authority of this Court. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .