1. Impugned in this Civil First Misc. Appeal is order of learned Munsiff JMIC Baramulla whereby learned Munsiff in an application for grant of temporary injunction titled Jagmohan Singh and Another v. Managing Director SFC and Others has held the order dated 24-5-2008 whereby parties were directed to maintain status quo till next date of hearing, to be "intact" and "still continuing". 2. It appears that the respondents herein filed a Civil Suit in the court of learned Munsiff JMIC Baramulla on 24-5-2008 pleading therein that the respondents were allottees of a contract for extraction, conversion and transportation of timber to the extent of 1.90 lakh CFTs from compartment no. 8 Forest Division, Baramulla to the appellants depot at Shalteng, Srinagar. The contract was claimed to have been allotted vide order 1832-41/SFC/Bla dated 7.3.2007. The respondents stated to have made huge investments in connection with the execution of the contract. The respondents admittedly were not able to execute the allotted work within the time frame agreed upon between the parties. The delay was attributed to topography of the forest area, sluggish handling of the matters connected with the execution of contract by the appellants and other administrative delays. The respondents complained that the appellants were going to float fresh tenders inviting fresh offers for the allotment of the work already allotted in their favour. The respondents alongside the suit filed an application for ad interim injunction. The learned trial judge on 24 May 2008 ordered status quo in the matter. The minutes of proceedings before the trial court, a certified copy whereof is placed on the file, reveals that the order of status quo was to operate till next date of hearing i.e. 10.6.2008. On 10 June 2008 learned presiding officer was not available and the matter was adjourned till 25 June 2008. On the said date the ad interim direction was extended to next date of hearing i.e. 12.7.2008. On 12.7.2008 and on four successive hearings the presiding officer was not available and no effective orders were passed. On 22nd. October 2008, the matter came up and was adjourned by the presiding officer to 31st October 2008, ad interim injunction however was not extended on any of the subsequent hearings. The respondents thereafter on 12.6.2009 filed an application for extension in the ad interim order dated 24 May 2008. On 22nd. October 2008, the matter came up and was adjourned by the presiding officer to 31st October 2008, ad interim injunction however was not extended on any of the subsequent hearings. The respondents thereafter on 12.6.2009 filed an application for extension in the ad interim order dated 24 May 2008. The case set up by the respondents was that the status quo order granted on 24.5.2008 till next date of hearing and extended on 25.6.2008 had not been extended. The respondents made a specific prayer for extending the ad interim order dated 24.5.2008. The learned trial judge on 12.6.2009 itself made following order on the top of the application: "Order dated 24.5.2008 is intact, order still continues." 3. The appellants are aggrieved of the order dated 12.6.2009 on the ground that the order has been passed at their back and without affording the appellants an opportunity to file the objections to the application. It is insisted that the order dated 24.5.2008 had come to an end due to efflux of time and the court having not extended the order after 10.6.2008 is deemed to have found no ground for extending the order. It is pleaded that the order impugned in the appeal on the face of it is bad in law and liable to be set aside. It is averred that once the appellants had caused their appearance before the trial court and opted to contest the suit as also application, it was not proper for learned trial judge to entertain an application and grant an exparte order. It is averred that the opinion expressed by the learned trial judge in the order impugned that the status quo order was "intact" was factually incorrect and not borne out from the record of the proceedings. The appellants plead that the respondents having failed to fulfill their contractual obligations cannot be allowed to put the corporation work on hold and disenable the appellant corporation from fulfilling its commitments to the general public. 4. Heard and considered. The contention of the appellants that the status quo order granted on 24.5.2008 had lost its life when it was not extended beyond 12.7.2008 finds support from the minutes of the proceedings. 4. Heard and considered. The contention of the appellants that the status quo order granted on 24.5.2008 had lost its life when it was not extended beyond 12.7.2008 finds support from the minutes of the proceedings. From perusal of annexure R4 placed on the file by the appellants the learned trial judge did not find it necessary to extend the order which was granted in a set time frame beyond 12.7.2008 and more than 15 hearings, the matter came up for hearing before the learned trial judge. In the circumstances when the respondents alive to the proceedings in the matter realized that the ad interim order granted in their favour was no more operational and in force, they approached the learned trial judge to extend the ad interim order. The least that was expected of the learned trial judge was to apply his mind to the facts disclosed in the application dated 12.6.2009, issue notice to the appellants and afford the appellants an opportunity to contest the application. The learned trial judge ought to have realized that the order dated 24.5.2008 was no more in operation and the parties were approaching almost a year after the ad interim order had lost its force. What was in effect being asked by the respondents was a fresh ad interim order against the appellants. The learned trial judge was expected to appreciate that in the intervening period quite a few developments might have taken place which would dissuade the judge from exercising the discretion in favour of the respondents and that in any case it was just and proper to afford the appellants an opportunity to project their viewpoint as regards the averments made in the application and apprise the court of developments, if any, subsequent to the initial order dated 24.5.2008, that had taken place and deserved consideration of the court. The learned trial judge instead of passing a judicial order on the application proceeded to merely record his opinion which again, was factually incorrect. 5. Viewed thus, the order impugned cannot stand a movements scrutiny and deserves to be set aside. 6. It appears that the respondents were allotted contract for extraction, conversion and transportation of 1.90 lakh cft timber (0.90 lakh cft and 1.0 lakh cft) from Forest Division Baramulla. The respondents were not able to execute the work and discharge their contractual obligations within the stipulated time. 6. It appears that the respondents were allotted contract for extraction, conversion and transportation of 1.90 lakh cft timber (0.90 lakh cft and 1.0 lakh cft) from Forest Division Baramulla. The respondents were not able to execute the work and discharge their contractual obligations within the stipulated time. The respondents wanted the work not executed by them or partially executed by them not to be re-allotted and reassigned. Be that as it may, the net effect of the order dated 25.5.2008 was that the appellants were not allowed to reassign and re-allot the work not executed by the respondents or left unfinished. The trial court after making the order against the appellants, that in effect tied their hands behind their back, should have dealt with the matter with proper dispatch and taken the proceedings to the logical end. The trial court instead allowed the matter to linger on pushing the parties to a realm of uncertainty, least realizing that by avoiding to finally dispose of the temporary injunction application the trial court was exposing general public to immense hardship. The trial court appears to have proceeded in the matter unmindful of the public interest involved therein. The appellant corporation is exclusively responsible for extraction of timber from the forests of the State and after its transportation and conversion for its sale to the consumers. If the corporation or person(s) through whom it executes its assigned work are endlessly restrained from extracting and transporting the timber, the real sufferer is the consumer. The immediate fallout of failure of the corporation to extract, transport and supply/sell timber is black marketing and price hike. It is not without purpose that Order 39 Rule 3A casts a duty on the court to dispose of an application for injunction within thirty days where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party. In the instant case the trial court granted ad interim injunction on 24 May 2008 in exparte. It was incumbent upon the trial court to dispose of the application within thirty days and if it was not able to so dispose of the application to record the reasons for the delay. The trial court has observed the direction in breach. 7. For the reasons discussed above the order dated 24-5-2008 is set aside. It was incumbent upon the trial court to dispose of the application within thirty days and if it was not able to so dispose of the application to record the reasons for the delay. The trial court has observed the direction in breach. 7. For the reasons discussed above the order dated 24-5-2008 is set aside. The temporary injunction application which is yet to be finally disposed of, is directed to be taken up for consideration on 01-04-2010 and to be finally disposed of by 10th of April 2010. The trial court shall take up the matter twice in a week and in the event the counsel for the parties or either of them is not available on the date fixed for hearing, to take up the matter on the next following day so that there is no room for any further delay in disposal of the matter. The learned trial judge shall be free to pass any interim order if warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case, till final disposal of the temporary injunction application. Parties through their counsel are directed to cause their appearance before the trial court on Ist April, 2010. Record be sent down forthwith. Disposed of.