Judgment : This Civil Revision petitioners/respondents 6 to defendants 6 to 9 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved against one order dated 27. 2008 passed in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 in O.S.No.370 of 2008 by the District Munsif, Ambattur in granting ad interim injunction in favour of the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff. 2. The first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has filed No.1195 of 2008 praying for an order of an ad interim injunction raining respondents/defendants, their men, agents, and servants and persons claiming through them from in any manner interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition mentioned party etc. .3. The trial Court in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 on 27. 2008 has issued the following Order: .“Heard. Document perused. Prima Facie case made out. Ad interim injunction granted till 8. 2008. Notice to the respondent by then. The petitioner is directed to comply with Order 39 Rule 3(a) C.P.C. Proof of service to be filed”. .4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/R6 to R9/D.6 to D.9 urges before this trial Court that the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 on 27. 2008 is based on non-application of mind and that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and suit documents filed, in proper perspective and it has not recorded as to whether the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has filed proof of service in regard to the compliance of Order 39, Rule 3(a) C.P.C. Further, the hearing of the application ought to have been advanced by the trial Court and that the trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in proper manner by adjourning the application to advance the hearing to 19. 2008 when that application has since been filed on 9. 2008. Moreover, the trial Court Judge has ignored the facts and circumstances under which the interim injunction has been obtained by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff when particularly, it was brought to the knowledge of the trial Court that an advocate by name Mr. Sampath has represented the revision petitioners before the Court without any authorization to do so by the revision petitioners and in any event, the ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court is opposed to the principles of law and therefore, prays for allowing of this Civil Revision petition to prevent aberration of justice. 5. Sampath has represented the revision petitioners before the Court without any authorization to do so by the revision petitioners and in any event, the ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court is opposed to the principles of law and therefore, prays for allowing of this Civil Revision petition to prevent aberration of justice. 5. According to the learned counsel of the revision petitioners, the trial Court has perused only the photo copies of documents before passing the interim order of ad interim injunction in O.A.No.1195 of 2008 and that the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has not filed the original documents and he relied on the photo copy of Settlement Deed and the order passed by the trial Court cannot stand in law. 6. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioners cites before this Court the decision in the case of Akbar Ali and 2 Others v. Alla Pitchai (1999) Supp MLJ 168 : 2000-1-LW 842 wherein, this Court has inter alia observed that “Failure of lower appellate Court to enter a finding as regards balance of convenience and prima facie case while granting interim injunction, the said order is without jurisdiction”. 7. He also relies on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Era Educational Trust and Another AIR 2000 SC 1573 : (2000) 5 SCC 57 : (2000) 3 MLJ 32, whereunder the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that even if the Order 39 of C.P.C. would not be applicable at the stage of granting interim relief in a petition under Articles 226 to 227 of the Constitution, but at the same time various principles laid down under Order 39 for granting ad interim or interim reliefs are required to be taken into consideration. .8. Yet another decision in the case of E.K. Palanisamy v. A.M. Murugesan and six Others 1999-2-LW 142, has been relied on the side of the Revision Petitioners wherein, this Court has inter alia held that the lower Court has exercised is discretion illegally in granting interim injunction and not ordered the police protection and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed etc. 9. 9. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff submits that the Civil Revision petition filed by the Revision petitioner before this Court is not maintainable per se in law, and that the revision petitioners have got remedy either to move the appellate Court or to approach the lower Court which passed the interim order granting ad interim injunction and has prayed for dismissed of the Revision Petition. In support of his contention, he presses into service the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and Others (2001) 1 MLJ 75 : (2000) 4 CTC 358 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, among other things, observed that an ex parte order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. would be appealable under Order 43 Rule of Code of Civil Procedure and the affected party may either move Appellate Court or approach the same Court which passed ex parte order. .10. It is to be borne in mind that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra, has inter alia opined that under the normal circumstances the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against the order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 of the Code in terms of Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. He cannot approach the appellate or revisional Court during the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction. In such circumstances, the party who does not get injustice due to the inaction of the Court in following the mandate of law must have remedy. So we are of the view that in a case where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3-A of the Code is flouted, the aggrieved party, shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the application for grant of vacation of a temporary injunction, against the order remaining in force. In such appeal, if preferred, the appellate court shall be obliged to entertain the appeal and further to take note of the omission of the subordinate Court in complying with the provisions of Rule 3A. In appropriate cases, the appellate Court, apart from granting or vacating or modifying the order of such injunction, may suggest suitable action against the erring judicial officer, including recommendation to take steps for making adverse entry in his ACRs. In appropriate cases, the appellate Court, apart from granting or vacating or modifying the order of such injunction, may suggest suitable action against the erring judicial officer, including recommendation to take steps for making adverse entry in his ACRs. Failure to decide the application or vacate the ex parte temporary injunction shall, for the purposes of the appeal, be deemed to be the final order passed in the application for temporary injunction on the date of expiry of thirty days mentioned in the Rule and that now, what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court it is a well recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a Constitutional remedy. Learned single Judge need not have entertained the revision petition at all and the party affected by the interim ex parte order should have been directed to resort to one of the other remedies. Be that as it may, now it is idle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the revision petition. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners also cites a decision in Kartick Das v. Dr. Arvind Gupta (1994) 4 SCC 225 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court as inter alia observed in regard to the factors to be considered for granting injunction. 12. As far as the present case is concerned, the revision petitioners/R6 to R9/D6 to D9 have filed their counter in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 before the trial Court and the matter is pending. It appears that the advance hearing application I.A.No.1543 of 2008 is pending before the trial Court, filed by the revision petitioners/R6 to R9/D6 to D9 praying to advance the hearing in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 in O.S.No.370 of 2008. .13. On a careful consideration of respective contentions advanced on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the trial Court to the effect that: “Heard. Document perused. Prima Facie case made out. Ad interim injunction granted till 8. 2008. Notice to the respondent by then. .13. On a careful consideration of respective contentions advanced on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the trial Court to the effect that: “Heard. Document perused. Prima Facie case made out. Ad interim injunction granted till 8. 2008. Notice to the respondent by then. The petitioner is directed to comply with Order 39 Rule 3(a) C.P.C. Proof of service to be filed”, is not a speaking and reasoned order. Yet it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the trial Court while granting ad interim injunction has employed the words “prima facie case made out” and therefore, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there has been a case of non-application of mind by the trial Court while granting the relief of ad interim injunction in I.A.No.1195 of 2008. But, however, for all times to come it is desirable for the trial Court to pass an order but a reasoned, qualitative and quantitative one with necessary details succinctly and briefly while granting ex parte injunction, so that the appellate Forum or higher forum will have the benefit of looking into the order passed by the trial Court in a proper perspective for better appreciation of the matter in issue. 14. In the present case, the revision petitioners/R6 to R9/D6 to D9 have got a remedy to file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and equally, they have also got the remedy to vacate the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 praying either for modification or annulment of the order passed. Admittedly, the revision petitioners have not resorted to such a recourse as per law. Without going into the merits of the case, notwithstanding the fact that this Court has supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside an error committed by the trial Court, yet in view of the settled principle that the litigants should avail ail the remedies which are open to them under the law, in one way or the other, before they see recourse to a constitutional remedy, on the basis of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and this Court resultantly in the interest of justice dismisses the civil revision petition, leaving open all the issues involved in the matter. 15. 15. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioners/R6 to R9/D6 to D9 are given the liberty to approach the trial Court and to file an application for vacating the interim orders granted by the trial Court in I.A.No.1195 of 2008. It is also open to them to file an appeal before the appellant Court under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. if they are so advised. Further, it is also brought to the notice of the Court that counter has been filed by the Revision petitioners/R6 to R9/D6 to D9 in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 before the trial Court, and hence, the trial Court is also directed to take up the said I.A for hearing and also I.A.No.1543 of 2008 (Advance hearing application) and to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of two weeks after providing due opportunities to parties to let in oral and documentary evidence as the case may be, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court, in completing the interlocutory proceedings putting at rest the controversies involved in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.