P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "code" by the appellant aggrieved by an order of status quo till 11-6-2003 granted in I. A. No. 447/2003 in O. S. No. 142 of 2003 dated 30-5-2003 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. ( 2 ) IN C. M. P. No. 12356/2003 this Court granted interim suspension for a period of four weeks on 10-6-2003. The respondents in the Appeal filed C. M. P. No. 12772/2003 in C. M. P. No. 12356/2003 in the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to vacate the interim suspension and on the ground of urgency both the counsel had addressed elaborate arguments and a request was made to dispose of the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself finally. Sri E. V. S. S. Ravi Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had submitted that the matter is in the nature of public interest litigation and though there is absolutely no material placed before the Court, the learned Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry had made an order of status quo till 11-6-2003. The learned Counsel also submitted that the suit O. S. No. 142/2003 and I. A. No. 445/2003 were transferred after vacation to the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada and they are renumbered as O. S. No. 671/2003 and I. A. No. 815/2003 respectively. The learned Counsel had taken me through the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for temporary injunction and had explained that absolutely there are no grounds at all since the rice mill is not in a nearby residential locality and absolutely there are no health hazards as complained by the respondents. The learned Counsel also had advanced elaborate arguments by placing reliance on Rule 26 (2) of the A. P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and had contended that at any rate it should be taken that there is deemed permission in relation to the construction of said rice mill. The learned Counsel also had advanced elaborate arguments by placing reliance on Rule 26 (2) of the A. P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 and had contended that at any rate it should be taken that there is deemed permission in relation to the construction of said rice mill. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the Certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board and had contended that though the respondents as petitioners/plaintiffs had not placed any material before the learned Judge, on such insufficient material an order of status quo till 11-6-2003 had been granted by virtue of which the appellant was put to heavy loss and under those circumstances the appellant had approached this Court and had obtained the interim suspension. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on E. MANGAMMA Vs. A. MUNISWAMY NAIDU, V. RAMA RAO Vs. KUNAPAREDDY BALAKOTAIAH, REV. T. ANANTHAM Vs. P. C. BENJAMIN. ( 3 ) PER contra Sri V. V. L. N. Sharma, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had submitted that this is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation and the respondents who are the petitioners in I. A. No. 447/2003 and plaintiffs in O. S. No. 147/2003 had instituted the suit raising several grounds by way of objections before the Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the learned Judge on perusing the material available on record and considering the objections raised in the pleadings and also in the affidavit filed in support of the application for temporary injunction had granted an order of status quo till 11-6-2003. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the present appellant in stead of moving the self-same Court or at present the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for vacating the said order under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code had approached this Court and obtained interim suspension for a particular period which is definitely unsustainable. The learned Counsel also submitted that inasmuch as only an order of status quo till a particular date had been granted, as against such an order, Appeal before this Court is definitely not maintainable. Strong reliance was placed on MIDCHE LINGE GOWDA Vs. CHANNAMMA, AKMAL ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on K. ABDUL MALIK Vs. Strong reliance was placed on MIDCHE LINGE GOWDA Vs. CHANNAMMA, AKMAL ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on K. ABDUL MALIK Vs. D. SHAMA VALI and had contended that the better course would have been that the appellant could have approached the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for disposal of the application in accordance with law. No doubt, the learned Counsel also had pointed out to several of the grounds raised in the affidavit relating to the non-granting of permission by the Panchayat to raise the structures and several other substantial objections of similar nature. ( 4 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 5 ) AS can be seen from the facts of the case, the respondents/plaintiffs in O. S. No. 142/2003 on the file of Vacation Civil Judge-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry as residents of Pedabrahmadevam had raised several objections to the effect that the appellant herein, the defendant in the suit, cannot be allowed to construct a rice mill in the plaint schedule property. The main objection appears to be on the ground of pollution apart from the non-granting of permission by the Panchayat etc. It is needless to say that the present Appeal is filed as against an ex parte order of status quo, that too, till a particular date only. It is brought to my notice that subsequent to 11-6-2003, no order of extension had been made in this regard. It is no doubt true that this Court had granted interim suspension in C. M. P. No. 12356/2003 for a period of four weeks and notice was ordered returnable by three weeks and the learned Counsel for the petitioner also was permitted to take out notice and file proof of service and directed the matter to be posted on 1-7-2003. In the meanwhile, an application was filed to vacate the order of interim suspension granted by this Court. In the decision referred (3) supra, it was held that an order passed on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code directing the parties to maintain status quo even after hearing both sides and adjourning the matter for hearing on merits cannot be treated as one under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code and hence the same is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. Reliance also was placed on the decision referred (5) supra. In the decision referred (1) supra, a Division Bench of this Court had observed:"it is clear that under O. 43, R. 1 (r), the right of appeal given to the affected party is not only against a final order of injunction passed by the lower Court after hearing both the parties under R. 4 of O. 39 but also against an ex parte order of injunction passed by the lower court under O. 39 R. 1 without hearing the affected party. Normal judicial machinery for correction of ex parte orders is the original Court itself. But under O. 43, R. 1 (r) the injuncted party can go to an appellate Court against an ex parte order even without first going before the original Court. So long as the statute has so willed the Courts should give effect to that expression of the legislative will, particularly in the case of remedy by way of an appeal". ( 6 ) THE order of status quo granted in the present case is an order passed by the Vacation Civil Judge in exercise of his powers under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and even as against such an ex parte order, a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal lies to this Court only. In the decision referred (2) supra, it was held that an Appeal against an order of Vacation Civil Judge lies only to the High Court. In the decision referred (3) supra, while dealing with Sections 32 (5) and (6) of the A. P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 r/w. Section 17 of the said Act, a Division Bench of this Court held that where an order passed was by the Vacation Civil Judge in an interlocutory application in a civil suit which has to be instituted in the Court of District Munsif but for the vacation, Appeal against such order of Vacation Civil Judge lies only to the High Court even though Courts are reopened after vacation by that time. Hence, in view of the legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against an order of status quo made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is perfectly maintainable. Hence, in view of the legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against an order of status quo made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is perfectly maintainable. It is no doubt true that the appellant could have as well moved the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for vacating the order, but for the reasons explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application before this Court and in view of the urgency, the appellant thought of preferring the present Appeal. In the decision referred (6) supra, where the Vacation Judge granted temporary injunction and transmitted the record to Court of District Munsif and after vacation an application was made before the District Judge to vacate the injunction, it was held that the question of Court of District Munsif lacking jurisdiction could not arise. It is no doubt true that the appellant could have invoked Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code before the Court of first instance, at present the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Whatever the reasons may be, it may be due to the interim suspension granted by this Court for a limited period or otherwise, the status quo granted till 11-6-2003, was not extended subsequent thereto. In the light of the same, I need not express any opinion whether there was any such grave urgency on the part of the Vacation Civil Judge to grant such an ex parte order without ordering notice to the other side and without affording opportunity to the other side in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of the fact that this Court had granted interim suspension and also taking into consideration the fact that the order of status quo granted by the Vacation Civil Judge itself was a short-lived order which came to an end by 11-6-2003 and also in the light of the material placed before this Court, I am of the considered view that no opinion can be expressed on the merits and demerits of the matter in the light of the serious controversial questions which had been advanced by both the Counsel. It is pertinent to note that the questions which had been raised and argued by both the counsel to satisfy this Court about the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, are all questions which are to be decided on the material which may be placed by both the parties and inasmuch as this Appeal is as against an ex parte order of status quo till a particular period only, this Court has no such opportunity to examine all such material though contentions had been advanced. Hence, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and especially taking note of the fact that the status quo order is no longer in existence, it is just and proper to make the following order in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal: The Court of first instance, the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, is hereby directed to give opportunity to both the parties to file all the documents and dispose of I. A. No. 815/2003 in O. S. No. 671/2003 at an early date, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada shall dispose of the application on its own merits being uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Except giving the above directions, no other order can be passed in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances. ( 7 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.