JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Plaintiff-opposite parties 1 to 3 filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1998 against defendants-petitioners and others for permanent injunction restraining defendants 2 and 3 from advertising for change of management/liquidation of the Company, defendant No. 1 and/or from giving effect to such advertisement, if any, made in this regard and for mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to comply with terms of agreement (Annexure 1) and thereafter to specifically perform each and every obligation contained therein including payment of unpaid dues as payable to the plaintiff and to re-start the unit at Kendra and consider proposal of re-habilitation of the said unit. 2. During pendency of the suit, a petition for temporary injunction restraining defendants from advertising for any change of management, liquidation of the Company and from giving effect to advertisement, if any, made in this regard till disposal of the suit was filed. 3. By order dated 26.3.1998, trial Court passed ex parts order and directed defendants to maintain status quo In respect of present position of Seraikella Glass Works Limited and not to take any step for changing the management of the said factory or to make any advertisement in this regard and if it was already made, not to give effect to such advertisement, 4. The trial Court with the aforesaid interim order dated 26.3.1998 issued show cause notice in injunction matter to the defendants. It was made clear that the said exports interim order had no bearing on merit of the suit. 5. This Revision application was admitted on 25.1.1998 and Impugned order was stayed and records of the suit was also called for. 6. From perusal of lower Court records, it appears that although only operation of impugned order dated 26.3.1998 was stayed by this Court, but it was mis-interpreted that further proceedings of the suit itself was stayed till further orders. 7. In my view, pursuant to show cause notice in interim injunction matter, defendant-petitioner was required to file show cause first as it was not the final order, rather an exparte order to maintain status quo and as such present Revision application was not maintainable. 7. In my view, pursuant to show cause notice in interim injunction matter, defendant-petitioner was required to file show cause first as it was not the final order, rather an exparte order to maintain status quo and as such present Revision application was not maintainable. Secondly, since the impugned ex parte order of interim injunction dated 26.3.1998 was stayed by this Court on 21.5.1998 after lapse of about three years and two months and on account of developments and events in the meantime, this Revision application has also become infructuous. 8. Accordingly, this Revision application is disposed of. Lower Court records may be sent down forthwith. 9. Disposed of accordingly.