Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 7.6.2012 passed by the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.8065 of 2012, this civil revision is filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.3251 of 2012 seeking injunction. It appears, he also filed the I.A.No.8065 of 2012 and got an ex-parte injunction against the revision petitioner herein/defendant. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would echo thecri de coeur of his client to the effect that despite caveat having been filed in this matter, without notice to the caveator, such ex-parte injunction was issued. As such, the learned counsel would submit that straight away, he approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent herein/plaintiff, who would counter the argument of the revision petitioner/defendant with his own explanation, relating to which, at present, this Court is not concerned with. 6. Ex facie and prima facie it is clear that as per Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. even as against ex-parte interim injunction, C.M.A. would lie before the appellate forum. It appears, such a course was not resorted to. If what the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submits is true, it is not known as to what prevented the revision petitioner/defendant to approach the same Court and highlight the alleged mistake committed by the Court office or the Court in not sending notice to the caveator. It is for the lower Court itself to consider the same and deal with the matter. As such, two options are open for the revision petitioner and it is for him to resort to either one of the two. 7. With the above observation, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.