JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the defendants/petitioners assailing one of the interim order dated 12th December, 2012 extending the interim order dated 29th October, 2012 which has been passed after hearing the parties. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants/petitioners along with certain other proforma defendants along with the application for temporary injunction. The ld.Trial Judge taking note of the submissions made was of the view, vide his order dated 29th October, 2012, that it will be in the interest of justice to restrain the defendant No.9 not to proceed or take any action on the application filed by the defendants 1-8 for their registration and status quo be maintained. However, the interim order dated 29th October, 2012 was for a limited period upto 5th November, 2012. On 5th November, 2012, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was posted on 21st November, 2012 and on the said date of hearing, the defendants-petitioners sought time to file reply to the application and the matter was posted on 7th December, 2012. On the said date also the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was posted for 8th January, 2013. 3. However, at this stage, when the respondent-plaintiff came to know that the interim order dated 29th October, 2012 has not been extended, he moved misc. application on which the ld.Trial Judge passed an order on 12th December, 2012 to continue the interim order dated 29th October, 2012 and fixed the matter for 8th January, 2013, next date already fixed and thereafter the interim order is being extended in the presence of the parties. 4. The main thrust of submission of counsel for petitioners is that once the matter was posted for 8th January, 2013 because of the fact that Presiding Officer was on leave, if at all there was any occasion arose to prepone the matter, they ought to have been served and interim order initially granted on 29th October, 2012 could not have been extended in their absence. 5. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the order dated 29th October, 2012 was passed after hearing the parties and it escaped from their notice that interim injunction has not been extended and since the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was posted for 8th January, 2013, immediately when the Presiding Officer resumed, application was filed on which impugned order was passed extending the interim order obviously for the date already fixed. 6. This court finds substance in the submission that once the matter was adjourned for 8th January, 2013, if any occasion arose to prepone the matter, it was required to inform the parties to participate in the adjudicating process but in the instant case, as it reveals from the record, the interim order dated 29th October, 2012 was extended for limited period and as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the interim injunction could not be extended which was beyond the control of the plaintiffs, for that he could not have been deprived of the legitimate right and by passing the order dated 12th December, 2012, no such prejudice, either way, could have been caused to the parties. More so, later proceedings after 8th January, 2013 have been noticed in the presence of the parties having aware of the fact that the interim injunction has been extended on each day of hearing. 7. Taking note of what has been observed above, this court does not find any apparent manifest error committed by the ld.Trial Judge, which may require interference. 8. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. However, with the consent of parties, it is expected that the ld.Trial Judge would take steps to decide the application for temporary injunction expeditiously in accordance with law.Petition Dismissed. *******