JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners are students of East Calcutta Girls' College, Lake Town (hereafter the college). As plaintiffs, they instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction registered as Title Suit No. 41 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sealdah. 2. CASE made out in the plaint is that a process had been initiated by the Principal of the college for election to the Union Council (i.e. Students' Union) vide notice dated 14.01.2011. In terms thereof, 01.02.2011 was proposed as the date of election. The petitioners alleged that the Principal of the college had no authority to issue the notice dated 14.01.2011; additionally, the process was sought to be conducted not in conformity with the rules and regulations for holding election. Decree for declaration that the notice dated 14.01.2011 is void ab initio, illegal and inoperative was prayed for. Also, mandatory injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from holding election on the basis of the impugned notice was claimed. In connection with the suit, the petitioners intended to move a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the 'Code') on 27.01.2011. The Trial Court noticed that one Sonamika Dey had lodged a caveat related to the affairs of the college. Hearing was accordingly adjourned. On 28.01.2011, the said Sonamika Dey filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code. She also filed a written objection to the petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the petitioners. 3. THE Trial Court upon considering the petition of the said Sonamika Dey allowed it. She was directed to be impleaded as additional defendant in the suit (defendant No. 7). Thereafter the Trial Court heard the petitioners as well as the defendant No. 7 on the prayer for ad interim temporary injunction. A prima facie satisfaction was recorded that the legality of the notice dated 14.01.2011 is questionable. Accordingly, it was ordered as follows: "That, the plaintiffs application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC is allowed at this stage, the defendants are restrained from giving any affect to the notice dated 14.1.11, till 12.2.11. In the meantime the O.C. lake town P.S. is directed to personally see that no breach of peace occurs in the College, premises/compound till 12.2.11. In the meantime the O.C. lake town P.S. is directed to personally see that no breach of peace occurs in the College, premises/compound till 12.2.11. Issue notice upon the Defendants to show cause within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the plaintiffs prayer for temporary injunction shall not be allowed. Plaintiff to comply the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 (a) and (b) at once." 4. IT is claimed by the petitioners that in terms of the order dated 28.01.2011, they had despatched copies of the petition for temporary injunction and the plaint along with a notice communicating the gist of the order to the defendants 1 to 6 by registered post and an affidavit of service was filed before the Trial Court on the following date. IT does appear from the order recorded by the Trial Court on 29.01.2011 that an affidavit in compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 (a) and (b) of the Code along with postal receipts had been filed which was directed to be retained with the records. It is further claimed by the petitioners that without any 'put up' petition having been filed by any of the defendants in the suit and without issuing any show-cause to them as to why the order dated 28.01.2011 shall not be vacated for non-compliance with provisions of Rule 3 (a) and (b) of Order 39 of the Code, the Trial Court vacated the interim order. This order is under challenge in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard Mr. Chakraborty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the defendant No. 7/opposite party No. 7 herein, and perused the impugned order. 6. THE Trial Court in the impugned order observed that the requisites filed by the petitioners were incomplete. Submission made on behalf of the defendant No. 7 that despite lapse of more than 24 hours from date of passing the order the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 (a) and (b) of the Code had not been complied with was accepted. THE Trial Court in the impugned order observed that the requisites filed by the petitioners were incomplete. Submission made on behalf of the defendant No. 7 that despite lapse of more than 24 hours from date of passing the order the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 (a) and (b) of the Code had not been complied with was accepted. THE order also proceeds to record the submission on behalf of the plaintiffs that since the Court had heard the defendant No. 7 while granting ad interim injunction, they were under the impression that provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 (a) and (b) were not required to be complied with in so far as the said defendant is concerned, which the Trial Court found to be unacceptable. THE Trial Court was of the further view that the reluctance on the part of the plaintiffs showed that there was no urgency. Further, there was no prayer for extension of time to comply with such provisions, leading to the ad interim order of injunction being vacated. I find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Chakraborty that the impugned order of the Trial Court deserves to be set aside. From the copy affidavit of compliance filed before the Trial Court, which is annexure 'E' to this application, it is evident that the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 was complied with strictly in so far as the original defendants (being defendants 1 to 6) are concerned. No exception could be taken in respect thereof and I shall assume that the Trial Court did not take any exception insofar as the attempt made by the plaintiffs/petitioners to comply with the said proviso. However, the Trial Court did take exception at the plaintiffs/petitioners not serving copy of the plaint and copy of the injunction petition on the defendant No. 7 after the order dated 28.01.2011 was passed. Question is whether on facts and in the circumstances, the view taken by the Trial Court in justified or not. 7. IT appears from the order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Trial Court that the defendant No. 7 had filed her written objection against the plaintiffs' petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The copy of the written objection is annexure 'D' to this application. In such objection, she had dealt with all the paragraphs of the injunction petition. 7. IT appears from the order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Trial Court that the defendant No. 7 had filed her written objection against the plaintiffs' petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. The copy of the written objection is annexure 'D' to this application. In such objection, she had dealt with all the paragraphs of the injunction petition. That could not have been possible unless the defendant No. 7 was in possession of the injunction petition. 8. A bare reading of Rule 3 of Order 39 reveals that the Court is empowered to grant ex parte ad interim order of injunction without hearing the respondent(s) if in the opinion of the Court delay would defeat the object of granting injunction. However, the said rule further makes it clear that in the event the Court grants ex parte ad interim order of injunction, it shall require the applicant to comply with clauses (a) and (b) appended to the proviso thereto. The object of the proviso is to ensure that when the application for temporary injunction comes up for further consideration on the returnable date, the Court is in a position to hear the parties and to decide whether to extend the ad interim order of injunction till the disposal of the injunction petition or to vacate it. The aforesaid narrative of facts would reveal that ad interim order of injunction was granted by the Trial Court on 28.01.2011 upon hearing the defendant No. 7. The order was effective in ad interim form since the original defendants had not been served and consequently not heard. The circumstances called for a meaningful and purposive approach rather than a hyper-technical approach. True it is that no attempt to send copies of the injunction petition and the plaint to the defendant No. 7 had been made in terms of the order dated 28.1.2011; but the fact that the defendant No. 7 had contested the injunction petition by filing objection could not have been ignored. Procedures are the handmaids of justice and not its mistresses. The Courts exist for administering substantial justice to the parties and not for rendering justice a casualty on technical grounds. Procedures are the handmaids of justice and not its mistresses. The Courts exist for administering substantial justice to the parties and not for rendering justice a casualty on technical grounds. Vacating of the ad interim order of injunction by the Trial Court on the specious ground that provisions contained in Order 39 Rule 3, insofar as the defendant No. 7 is concerned has not been complied with, suffers from material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. By the process of vacating the interim order, the election that was due on 01.02.2011 was conducted and members elected to the Union Council. 9. I have no hesitation to hold that the Trial Court grossly erred in vacating the ad interim order of injunction without considering the materials on record and without also appreciating the scope, terms, effect and import of Rule 3 of Order 39. The impugned order cannot be retained on record. It, accordingly, stands set aside. This is a fit and proper case where the Court ought to direct status quo ante as on 29.10.2011 to be maintained. It is, accordingly, directed that for the present, election of members to the Union Council of the college shall remain in abeyance and the Union Council shall not function any further till 31.03.2011. 10. THE Trial Court shall hear the injunction petition within that date and decide, according to law, whether to continue the order of status quo ante or to vacate it. In either case, the Trial Court shall be under obligation to support its order with reasons. Since I have interfered with the order of the Trial Court on the ground as assigned above, I do not wish to make any comment on the other submission made by Mr. Chakraborty that the Trial Court had no authority to pass any order on 31.03.2011 without a 'put up' petition being filed by the defendants and/or without issuing show-cause notice to the plaintiffs as to why the ad interim order of injunction shall not be vacated for non-compliance of provisions contained in Rule 3 of Order 39. 11. I further place on record that since the matter cannot brook further delay. I have not directed service of notice on the original defendants. It is, however, made clear that they shall be free to take such defence as is available in law before the Trial Court. 12. ACCORDINGLY, an application stands disposed of. 11. I further place on record that since the matter cannot brook further delay. I have not directed service of notice on the original defendants. It is, however, made clear that they shall be free to take such defence as is available in law before the Trial Court. 12. ACCORDINGLY, an application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties as early as possible. CO. No. 646 of 2011 S. Roy Chowdhury for the petitioners. 13. AFTER the words "vacated the interim order" appearing in the 7th line from the bottom at page 3 of the order dated 03.03.2011, the words "by an order dated 31.01.2011" shall be inserted. 14. IN the 11th line of the said order at page 7 thereof, the date 29.10.2011 shall be read as 29.01.2011. Department is directed to make necessary corrections in the order dated 03.03.2011. 15. URGENT photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.