Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode in I.A.No.939 of 2010 in O.S.No.574 of 2010, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the lower Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus : The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed O.S.No.574 of 2010 with the following prayer, citing the revision petitioner herein, namely Meenakshi Sundaram as D2, Rathinavel as D1 and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as D3 and the Junior Engineer as D4. "(a) To restrain the defendants 1 and 2, their men agents and assigns by means of a permanent injunction from installing or running power looms in the 'B' schedule properties; (b) To restrain the defendants 3 and 4 by means of a permanent injunction from granting the supply of power to the powerlooms machinary that may be installed in the 'B' schedule property; and (c) for costs." 5. While so, in the pending O.S.574 of 2010, I.A.No.949 of 2010 was filed seeking injunction by the plaintiffs. However, in that injunction application, D1 and D2 were not added as parties. But the petitioners/plaintiffs cited only D3 and D4 as respondents therein; whereupon D1 and D2 filed application in I.A.No.39 of 2011 for getting themselves impleaded in I.A.No.949 of 2010 and it was allowed by the lower Court. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the amendment was not carried out, but the main injunction application itself was disposed of as though no counter was filed by D3 and D4, who were R1 and R2 therein. In fact, D1 and D2 should have been arrayed as R3 and R4 in the said injunction application, but that was not done so. 6. The main grievance of the revision petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lower Court simply allowed the application without following the procedure, as the very order of the Court itself was not adhered to by the same Court and the petitioners therein in that injunction application also did not take steps to array D1 and D2 as R3 and R4 in the injunction application. As such, I am of the view that no notice to other side is required. Believing the representation of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the narration made by him, I would like to pass the following order: The petitioner is given liberty to approach the lower Court and file necessary application for recalling the said order passed in the injunction application citing the reasons as narrated before this Court; whereupon, the Court shall verify the Court records and in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the narration of facts as delineated by the revision petitioner is true, the order has to be recalled and the I.A. for injunction has to be reheard and disposed of on merits after giving opportunity to D1 and D2 to file their counter and hearing all concerned. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.