Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 23.04.2008, passed by the learned Principal VIII Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai, in I.A.No.6995 of 2008 in O.S.No.2896 of 2008, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this revision as stood exposited from the records could succinctly and pithily be set out thus: The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.2896 of 2008 seeking the following reliefs: "(a) for declaration, declaring that the elevation f the second defendant as President (common for film and Television Sector) on 10. 2007 as null and void; .(b) for declaration, declaring that the elevation of the 3rd defendant as Treasure (common for film and Television Sector) on 1.08.2007 as null and void; .(c) for consequential injunction from restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants from functioning as officer bearers of the 1st defendant association; .(d) for mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to convene the General Body Meeting for conducting fresh election for the post of President and Treasurer (common for film and television sector) according to the Constitution and Bye Laws of the 1st defendant Association; and .(e) awarding the cost of the suit; and .(f) pass such further or other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." He also filed I.A.No.6995 of 2008 seeking interim injunction so as to restrain the defendants 2 and 3 from functioning as Office bearers of the Association, namely Film and Television Producers Guild of South India i.e. D1. The trial Court passed the following order on 23.04.2008: "Heard the petitioner. Perused the plaint documents especially the bye-law. There is no provision for elevation without election. Hence, prima facie case is made out. Balance of convenience is seems. Hence, ad-interim injunction is granted till 6. 2008. Order 39 Rule 3 CPC to be complied with. Call on 6. 2008." 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said ex parte order of injunction, the defendants 1 to 3 filed this revision on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 placing reliance on the grounds of revision would submit that the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. 2008." 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said ex parte order of injunction, the defendants 1 to 3 filed this revision on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 placing reliance on the grounds of revision would submit that the order of the lower Court has to be set aside. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would develop his argument to the effect that as per the bye law 18, absolutely there is no possibility of elevating a particular member as President or Treasurer. But in this case, curiously the second and third defendants have been elevated as President and Treasurer respectively arbitrarily by some of the interested persons. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with that alone, the suit was filed. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would also point out that there was large scale resignation of members, whereupon new members were added and those new members without taking steps to convene General Body, simply recognized D2 and D3 as the President and Treasurer of the D1 association. The lower Court before ordering notice thought it fit to order ex parte injunction on the ground that there was no possibility of elevating a member as a President or Treasurer. Such an order was passed virtually on 23.04.2008 and now we are in 2009. I am at a loss to understand as to what prevented the defendants 1 to 3 to file counter in that I.A. and contest the matter. So far it appears that they have not filed written statement also in the suit. 7. Put simply, inasmuch as, the lower Court granted such an ex parte injunction, the appropriate course for the aggrieved party was to prefer C.M.A. under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the C.P.C., but straightaway this revision has been filed and on that ground also this revision is liable to be dismissed. Hence for all these reasons, this revision is dismissed granting liberty to the revision petitioners to file counter in that I.A. and agitate the matter and also seek permission to file written statement as per law and get the suit disposed of as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.