ORDER B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. In both the revision applications filed under Rule 36A of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following short but substantial question of law has been raised: Whether an order of trial Court directing issuance of notice to the Defendants before granting temporary or ad interim injunction is appealable 2. Heard Shri N. Khan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri A. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the sole Respondent. 3. Both the writ applications are being disposed of by this common judgment and order since the question posed before this Court is based on identical facts. As could be gathered from the documents filed with the revision applications, the Petitioners were the Defendants under one David Nichols Roy in respect to shop houses situated at Barabazar Road, Shillong. Suddenly they received a pleader's notice on behalf of the Respondent asking Petitioners' to vacate the tenanted premises on the ground that the building, wherein the shops of the Petitioners were situated, required immediate repairing and reconstruction. In the said notice the Respondent claimed himself to be the owner of the landed property, named and styled as "Nichols Roy Property". Hence title suits were filed by the Petitioners in the Court of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. East Khasi Hills, Shillong seeking a declaration that the Petitioners were bona fide tenants of the suit premises and also, inter alia prayed for permanent injunction against the Respondent not to interfere with their possession. Along with the plaint, applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were also filed seeking ad interim injunction so as to restrain the opposite party not to disturb the peaceful possession of the Petitioners. 4. As usual both the suits and applications for injunction were registered, however, instead of granting any ad interim injunction, the trial Court preferred to issue notice upon the Defendants/opposite parties before granting interim restrained order. The order is as such: 17-10-2009: CR to put up today. Perused the CR. Let notice be issued to Defendants. Fix 30-11-2009. 4.1. The aforesaid order passed in Title Suits was also made applicable in the Misc. Case for injunction. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders the Plaintiffs preferred appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. The order is as such: 17-10-2009: CR to put up today. Perused the CR. Let notice be issued to Defendants. Fix 30-11-2009. 4.1. The aforesaid order passed in Title Suits was also made applicable in the Misc. Case for injunction. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders the Plaintiffs preferred appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. Shillong. However, the appeals have been dismissed vide impugned orders dated 30-11-2009 passed in FAO No. 7(T)/2009 and FAO 6(T)/2009 respectively. In the aforesaid impugned orders the appellate Court has held that the trial Court neither granted injunction nor refused the prayer of injunction and. as such, the orders are not appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r) Code of Civil Procedure. These orders of appellate Court are under challenge before me. 6. Shri Khan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that issuance of notice upon the Defendants before passing temporary injunction amounts to refusal to grant ad interim injunction, prayed for under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such, order are also appealable under Order 43, Rule (r) Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also contended that Rule3 of Order 39 only lays down the procedure for grant of ad interim or temporary injunction without notice and, this being not a substantive law for grant of injunction, it has to be presumed that an 'order of notice' would mean that the Court has declined to grant ex parte injunction under Order 31, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is appealable. In support of this submission, learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of A Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan AIR 2000 SC 3032 , a judgment of Full Bench of Gauhati High Court given in the case of Akmal Ali v. State of Assam AIR 1984 Gau 86 and the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Rajendraprasad R. Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay AIR 2003 Bom 392 . 7. Bombay AIR 2003 Bom 392 . 7. On the other hand, Shri A. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that rights of aggrieved person to file suits and appeals are created by statute and unless the law provides a forum of appeal, it cannot be carved out by implication, as it would mean re-drafting the legislation. Relying upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Gajraj Singh v. Ramkumar AIR 1992 MP 316 it was submitted that Order 43, Rule 1(r)Code of Civil Procedure does not admit of any order passed under Order 39, Rule 3, which relates to pre-injunction notice upon the opposite party. 8. Since the issue revolves around interpretation and implication of Section 104, Order 39, Rules3,3A and 4 and Order 43, Rule 1(r) Code of Civil Procedure, the aforesaid provisions of law are reproduced below for easy reference: 104. Orders from which appeal lies. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders: (ff) to (h) x x x x (i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules; (emphasis by me) Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in Clause (ff) save on the ground that no order, or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made. (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section. Order XXXIX TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS Temporary Injunctions 1 & 2 x x x x 3. (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section. Order XXXIX TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS Temporary Injunctions 1 & 2 x x x x 3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party.- The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party; Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant: (a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with: (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and (b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent. 3-A Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days.- Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability. 4. Order of injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside.- Any order for an injunction may be dis-charged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any party dis-satisfied with such order: Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the in-junction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of justice. Provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue. hardship to that party. 5 to 10 x x x x . Order XLIII APPEALS FROM ORDERS 1. Appeals from orders: An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104 namely: (a) to (q) x x x x (r) an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, (Rule 2A) Rule 4 or Rule 10of Order XXXIX. (s) to (w) x x x x 9. In the case of A Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining an issue as to whether an order of ad interim injunction, coupled with notice to the opposite party, is appealable or not. In the said case the trial Court had passed an ex parte speaking order for granting ad interim injunction and then issued notice upon the opposite party. However, the High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 overruled the order observing that the trial Court ought not have granted injunction at the first stage itself, which could operate beyond 30 days as the Court had then no occasion to know of what the affected par has to say about it. In the opinion of the High Court such a course is impermissible under Order 39, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Then the matter was taken to the Apex Court by the Plaintiff. 10. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was contended by the Plaintiff that the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the order of the trial Court could have been challenged either by filing an application in the same Court for vacation or modification of the interim ex parte order or an appeal could have been preferred by the opposite party. 11. After examining the issues the Apex Court held that Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure empowers the trial Court to grant interim/temporary injunction with or without notice to the opposite party and as such order is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r), Code of Civil Procedure. 11. After examining the issues the Apex Court held that Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure empowers the trial Court to grant interim/temporary injunction with or without notice to the opposite party and as such order is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r), Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are as below: 11. It cannot be contended that the power to pass interim ex parte orders of injunction does not emanate from the said Rule. In fact, the said rule is the repository of the power to grant orders of temporary injunction with or without notice, interim or temporary, or till further orders or till the disposal of the suit. Hence, any order passed in exercise of the aforesaid powers in Rule 1 would be appealable as indicated in Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. The choice is for the party affected by the order either to move the appellate Court or to approach the same Court which passed the ex parte order for any relief. 12. Referring to Rule 3 of Order 39 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even if reasons are not supplied, while granting ex parte ad interim injunction, it can be presumed by implication even, if they are not stated in so many words. Their Lordships have further observed that if the party, in whose favour the ex parte order has been passed, fails to comply with the duty laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 3 of Order 39 would run the risk of consequence of non-compliance of statutory duties. Their Lordships have further observed that ordinarily the application for temporary injunction should be decided within 30 days, as enjoined by Rule 3-A. 13. Apparently the question raised in the instant revision applications; as to whether an order of notice simpliciter under Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure is appealable or not was not agitated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to the repository powers of the Court to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction in the ambit of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure would be of some relevance in deciding these cases. 14. However, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to the repository powers of the Court to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction in the ambit of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure would be of some relevance in deciding these cases. 14. In the case of Akmal Ali (supra) the Full Bench of Gauhati High Court was called, upon to answer the question as to whether an ex parte order of ad interim injunction is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. After giving harmonious reading of Rules 1, 2and 4 of Order 39, their Lordships have held that the right conferred under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with Section 104, Code of Civil Procedure cannot be construed as a restrictive one. Their. Lordships have held that the legislature has created an unqualified right of appeal against 'any Order' passed under Order 39, Rules 2, 2-A, 4 and l0 whether inter parte or ex parte or a speaking or non speaking order. Examining the length and breadth of the appealable provision i.e. Order 43 Rule1(r), their Lordships have held that an order refusing to grant ad interim injunction is also appealable. The relevant observations can be profitably extracted below: 8. We hold that against an order of ad interim injunction under Section 151of the Code is not appealable, as Order 43, Rule 1(r) is not attracted. Order 43. Rule 1(r) does not provide for an appeal against any order of injunction made under Section 151 of the Code'. We hold that an order made under Order 39, Rules 1, 2, and 4 re-fusing to grant an ex parte order of ad interim injunction is appealable because Order 43, Rule 1(r) enables a party to prefer an appeal against "an order", positive or negative, passed under Rules 1, 2,2-A and 4 of Order 39. An order refusing an ad interim injunction is a negative order, but falls within the expressions "an order" ...We hold that refusal to grant an ex parte order of ad interim injunction is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of "the Code". Further, we hold that no appeal lies against an ex parte order of ad interim injunction if it is rendered under any provision of 'the code' other than under Rules 1, 2, 2-A, 4 and 10 of Order 39. Further, we hold that no appeal lies against an ex parte order of ad interim injunction if it is rendered under any provision of 'the code' other than under Rules 1, 2, 2-A, 4 and 10 of Order 39. We also hold that an appeal lies against an ex parte order of ad interim injunction passed under Order 39, Rules 1, 2, 2-A, and 4, no matter whether it is a short-term or long-term, speaking or non-speaking, ex parte or inter parte. 15. In the case of Rajendraparsad R. Singh (supra) the question as to whether an order of notice under Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure is appealable or not was directly came up before consideration of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 16. After referring to various authorities, including the judgment of the Gauhati High Court about the maintainability of appeal against an order of notice to the opposite party under Order 39, Rule3, Code of Civil Procedure, his Lordships has held that power to grant and not to grant an injunction is vested in the Court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Rule 3 is only procedural safeguards. In other words, Rule 3 is neither a substantive law nor a repository to power to grant injunction. His Lordship has further held that Rule 3 would be superfluous and would pot exist without Rules 1 and2 of Order 39. It has further been held that power to grant injunction under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 includes power not to grant an injunction and issuance of notice under Rule 3 would amount to an order not to grant injunction, till notice is served on the opposite party. With these observations and findings His Lordship has held that an order of notice purportedly issued under Rule 3 of Order 39 is also, appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r) Code of Civil Procedure. 17. I fully endorse their view taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In fact, the legal position was made clear by the Full Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Akmal Ali (supra), wherein, it was categorically held that refusal to grant an ex parte order of ad interim injunction is also appealable. 18. In my considered opinion, Rule 3 of Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure cannot be read in isolation. 18. In my considered opinion, Rule 3 of Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure cannot be read in isolation. I am also of the view that Rules 1 to 5 of Order 39 are intrinsically related to each other and have to be read harmoniously. I reiterate the view taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that the provisions of Rule 3 are only procedural in nature. The words "before' granting injunction" in the marginal heading of Rule 3 clearly indicates that this Rule is a continuance of Rules 1 and 2 and unless; implied existence of Rules 1 and 2 in the entire chapter is not inferred it would make the provisions of Rules 3, 3A, 4 and 5 otiose and redundant. I am also of the view that if the orders passed in Rule 3, i.e. issuing pre injunction notice to the opposite party, is taken out of rigour of Order 43, Rule 1(r) Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court may adopt a practice of refusal ad interim ex parte injunction by way; of issuing notices, without assigning reasons so that such orders cannot be challenged by way of appeal. On these premises, I hold that orders of issuance of notice simpliciter, purportedly passed under Order 39, Rule 3, are essential element of Rules 1 and 2, meaning refusal to grant ex parte injunction, and as such, orders are appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with, Section 104(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 19. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, rendered in the case of Gajraj Singh v. Ramkumar (supra). It is true that in this judgment their Lordships have held that orders passed under Rule 3 Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure are beyond the ambit of Order 43, Rule 1(r) and such orders of notice are not appealable. However, while taking this view the Hon'ble Supreme Court neither took into consideration the view taken by the Full Bench of Gauhati High Court as well as the judgment of Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of A Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra). In the later case while examining the implication of non-compliance of the conditions for grant of ex parte injunction as laid down under Rule 3 of Order 39, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following observations: 13. In the later case while examining the implication of non-compliance of the conditions for grant of ex parte injunction as laid down under Rule 3 of Order 39, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following observations: 13. What would be the position if a Court which passed the order granting interim ex parte injunction did not record reasons thereof or did not require the applicant to perform the duties enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of Rule3 of Order 39. In our view such an order can be deemed to contain such requirements at least by implication even if they are not stated in so many words. But if a party, in whose favour an order was passed ex parte, fails to comply with the duties which he has to perform as required by the proviso quoted above, he must take the risk. Noncompliance with such requisite on his part cannot be allowed to go without any consequence and to enable him to have only the advantage of it. The consequence of the party (who secured the order) for not complying with the duties he is required to perform is that he cannot be allowed to take advantage of such order if the order is not obeyed by the other party. A disobedient beneficiary of an order cannot be heard to complain against any disobedience alleged against another party. 20. In view of the aforesaid authority of the Apex Court as well as the Full Bench judgment of this Court it cannot safely be held that provisions of Rules 1 and 2 have to be read in Rule 3 by implication and the order passed under Rule 3 issuing notice simpliciter would amount to refusal to grant ex parte ad interim injunction. Hence, such orders are also appealable under Order 43, Rule1(r) Code of Civil Procedure. 21. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, I hold that the impugned order of the appellate Court, declining to take cognizance of the appeal on the ground that trial Court had neither granted injunction nor refused injunction is unsustainable in law. As a corollary, the judgment and orders of the appellate Court are hereby set aside. 21. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, I hold that the impugned order of the appellate Court, declining to take cognizance of the appeal on the ground that trial Court had neither granted injunction nor refused injunction is unsustainable in law. As a corollary, the judgment and orders of the appellate Court are hereby set aside. However, since the injunction applications were filed in the month of October, 2009 it would be just and proper to direct the trial Court to hear and decide the applications of the Plaintiffs for temporary injunction; upon hearing the opposite parties, by way of writing a speaking order, instead of remanding the appeal for deciding the same on merit. 22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the revision applications stand disposed of.