SINGHAL, Member – This revision has been filed by applicant-defendant under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (in short ``the Act), against the order dated 5.6.99 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, by which his appeal No. 75/99, under Section 225 of the Act has been dismissed. (2). In short, the facts of the case are that the non- applicant-plaintiff Chothu filed a suit in the court of Asstt. Collector, Shahpura in which an application under Section 212 of the Act has been filed alleging that the applicant-defendant wants to shift electric connection from the well bearing khasra No. 531 area 0.04 hectare situated at village Nayabas Tehsil Shahpura with the help of non-applicants No. 2 to 5 whereas non- applicant has also got half share in the disputed well, therefore, the applicant and non-applicants No.2 to 5 be restrained by temporary injunction from shifting the electric connection from the disputed well. The learned trial court, after hearing the non-applicant No.1, issued ex-parte temporary injunction on 16.2.99 and the applicant and the non-applicants were directed to file their objections on 19.2.93. The exparte injunction was issued till 19.2.99. On 19.2.99 the counsels put their appearance on behalf of the applicant and non-applicants No. 2 to 5 and the case was fixed for filing reply and arguments on 23.2.99. After that the proceedings contained to be adjourned for asking time to file reply. In the meantime, the applicant- defendant filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the ex-parte order passed on 16.2.99 which has been decided as aforesaid by the impugned order, now this revision. (3). On the request of both the counsels this revision is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Hence, I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the record. (4). The learned Asstt. Collector granted ad-interim temporary injunction and the applicant appeared before the trial court filing objections but instead of filing objections he asked adjournments and lastly instead of filing objections before the trial court he filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the temporary injunction issued by the trial court till the disposal of the suit. No doubt, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has committed error in confirming ad-interim temporary injunction issued by the trial court till the disposal of the suit and have not considered as to whether the appeal lies before him or not against the ad-interim temporary injunction order. Ad-interim temporary injunction granted in favour of a party lasts till the hearing of the objection of the opposite party and after hearing of the objection, if any, the order is either confirmed or vacated. It is only the later order of confirmation of ad-interim temporary injunction given earlier or of its vacation that becomes a regular order of temporary injunction during pendency of the suit proceedings and only such order has been made appealable under Section 225(1) of the Act. Ad-interim order of temporary injunction pending hearing of the objections of the opposite party is not appealable under Section 225(1) of the Act. Such an order is purely a transient order remaining operative till the appearance of the opposite party and showing cause as to why such an order should not have been issued. The general principle of law is that no order can be passed adversely affecting the rights of the parties without hearing the parties. Ad-interim order of temporary injunction is issued as an exception to this principle because of the very transient nature of such an order. Party aggrieved by such order has a remedy of appearance before the authority issuing such order and showing cause as to its vacation thereafter the order is either confirmed or vacated. The affected party has no right to go in appeal without even showing cause to the authority issuing said order unless there is final adjudication of the issue of temporary injunction for the duration of the pendency of the case, no appeal can be preferred under Section 225 of the Act. The applicant Mangu had the opportunity to appear before the trial court for showing cause against ad-interim temporary injunction issued against him but he did not avail it and rushed to the Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority has committed illegality and jurisdictional error in confirming the ad-interim temporary injunction issued by the learned trial court till the disposal of the suit. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority could have dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. (5). The learned Revenue Appellate Authority has committed illegality and jurisdictional error in confirming the ad-interim temporary injunction issued by the learned trial court till the disposal of the suit. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority could have dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. (5). In the result, this revision is accepted and the order dated 5.6.99 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur is set-aside. The applicant is directed to file his objections against the ad-interim temporary injunction granted by the trial court before it who will pass appropriate orders on ad-interim temporary injunction issued by him, after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. (6). Pronounced in the open court.