JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had passed an order of interim temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 1,5.2013. Thereafter an application was moved by the opposite party under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. He submits that rather than deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., the temporary injunction order passed in favour of the petitioner was vacated. Learned Counsel submits that the Trial Court had not even heard the arguments on the injunction application, as the matter was posted for argument on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. Thus, he submits that the impugned order is illegal being grossly violative against the principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 3. Mr. Hemant Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the suit suffers from defect of non-impleadment of necessary party. He submits that the appellant had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment of the defendant Satnam Singh in the suit. The learned Trial Court considered the merit of the averments in the application and came to the conclusion that the proceedings which were undertaken till that date were prejudicial to Satnam's right and as he was not impleaded in the suit earlier, the Court thought fit not to continue the interim stay passed in favour of the petitioner. He thus submits that the order impugned is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar. It is not in dispute that the interim stay was passed in favour of the appellant on 1.5.2013. The matter was pending before the learned Trial Court for consideration of application filed by Satnam Singh under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. The parties were thus not on notice for arguing the matter on the interim stay application. The order sheet dated 5.3.2014 also reads that the matter was posted for orders on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to have considered the validity of interim injunction which was operating in favour of the petitioner from earlier. The order sheet dated 5.3.2014 also reads that the matter was posted for orders on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to have considered the validity of interim injunction which was operating in favour of the petitioner from earlier. Thus, the order dated 5.3.2014 whereby the interim stay order passed in favour of the petitioner on 1.5.2013 was vacated is obviously illegal as having been passed in total contravention of principles of natural justice. 5. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The order dated 5.3.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court is quashed. The learned Trial Court is directed to decide the application filed by the respondent Satnam Singh under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. afresh expeditiously. The stay application also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******