JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by Defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.815 of 2016 on the file of the Court of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, challenges the order dated 19.8.2016 passed by the said Court in I.A.No.275 of 2016. 2. The 1st respondent herein instituted the said suit for the following reliefs: (a) Declaring that the plaintiffs association alone has the right to administer and manage the affairs of Sri Kalyana Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Durganagar Colony, Panjagutta and to administer smooth functioning of the temple activities and consequentially to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the affairs of the temple run by the plaintiff; (b) For mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the records and books and properties of the temple to the plaintiffs association; (c) For costs; (d) And may pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. 3. In the said suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.275 of 2016 under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for the following relief: To direct the 6th respondent/defendant not to operate the Bank of Baroda, Panjagutta, bank account No. 32170100001021 and Corporation Bank, Panjagutta bank account No. 206600101000398 or to withdraw FDRs, collect donations and hundi collections of the temple during the pendency of the above suit. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge passed an order on 19.8.2016 and the said order reads as follows: Respondent No.6 summons served at 9.15 a.m. Respondent No.6 called absent. Though the matter was called thrice till 1.45 p.m. the respondent No.6 called absent, set exparte. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Perused the record. It was admitted fact that the Respondent No.1 temple is in the hands of Trust and Respondent No.8. It is the case of the petitioner that the R6 misused the order of Respondent-8 and interfering with the affairs of the temple and the Respondent-1 temple is situated in the plaintiff colony and they are the devotees of the temple and to safeguard the interest of the temple, the petition was filed. Though Respondent-6/Defendant-6 received the summons, he could not appear and represent his case. Though Respondent-6/Defendant-6 received the summons, he could not appear and represent his case. To safeguard the interest of the temple and devotees, the Respondent-6 is directed not to withdraw the amount from the Bank of Baroda, Punjagutta, Bank A/c No.32170100001021 and Corporation Bank, Punjagutta Bank Account No. 206600101000398 and not to withdraw FDRs and if any amount is collected as donations and hundi collections of the temple, it has to be remitted in any of the above bank accounts, till the disposal of the suit. 5. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC assails the above said order. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, the learned Judge passed the impugned order without giving reasonable opportunity and in deviation to the mandatory requirements of law and on the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently argues that the learned Judge passed the impugned order strictly in accordance with law and only after taking into account the entire material available on record and the said order is not amenable to any correction by this Court under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgments in Shabeer Ahmed v. Shamshad Begum and Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices (P) Ltd., Hyderabad and others ( 2007 (5) ALT 3 ). 7. In the above backdrop, now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is- whether the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants interference of this Court under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC? 8. The information available before this Court discloses that the learned Senior Civil Judge issued notice to Defendant No.6 obviously under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC. There is absolutely no dispute about the reality that Defendant No.6 received the said notice dated 18.8.2016 through Bailiff at 9.15 a.m. on 19.8.2016. The same is evident from the order under challenge also. Even according to the impugned order, the learned Judge set the 6th defendant exparte at 1.45 p.m. on 19.8.2016. There is absolutely no dispute about the reality that Defendant No.6 received the said notice dated 18.8.2016 through Bailiff at 9.15 a.m. on 19.8.2016. The same is evident from the order under challenge also. Even according to the impugned order, the learned Judge set the 6th defendant exparte at 1.45 p.m. on 19.8.2016. The notice under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC is not a mere formality and it needs to be adhered to unless the same is decided to be dispensed with as per the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of CPC. That is not the situation in the instant case. Having ordered notice under Rule 3, without affording reasonable opportunity, the learned Judge on the same day of service of notice, passed the questioned order. Even as per Rule 58 of Civil Rules of Practice, it is incumbent upon the Court to issue (3) days notice in advance of the hearing of Interlocutory Application and in utter deviation and disregard to the said mandatory requirement, the learned Judge passed the impugned order. 9. With regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents on the aspect of maintainability of the appeal, instead of filing an application to vacate the injunction order, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices (P) Ltd., Hyderabad ( 2004 (3) ALD 228 ) (2 supra), held that appeal against exparte injunction should not be resorted to as a matter of course except under extraordinary circumstances, such as non-compliance of statutory provisions or in rarest of rare circumstances. In the instant case, there is absolutely no controversy with regard to reality that Defendant No.6 received notice at 9.15 a.m. on 19.8.2016. According to the impugned order, the matter was called thrice before 1.45 p.m. by the Court below and the Defendant No.6 was set exparte. This Court finds total non-compliance of statutory provisions in this case also. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is complete deviation and non-compliance of statutory requirements of law as indicated supra. In Shabeer Ahmed v. Shamshad Begum (1 supra), this Court at paragraph 5 held that the period stipulated under Rule 58 of Civil Rules of Practice can be reduced. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is complete deviation and non-compliance of statutory requirements of law as indicated supra. In Shabeer Ahmed v. Shamshad Begum (1 supra), this Court at paragraph 5 held that the period stipulated under Rule 58 of Civil Rules of Practice can be reduced. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said judgment also would not render any assistance to the case of respondent/plaintiff as in the instant case, the Defendant No.6 is completely denied the opportunity by giving him not even a half day to appear before the Court. 11. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any scintilla of hesitation to hold that the learned Senior Civil Judge passed the impugned order by totally ignoring the mandatory requirements of law, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the Docket Order dated 19.8.2016 passed by the Court of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.275 of 2016 in O.S.No.815 of 2016 and I.A.No.275 of 2016 is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration and for passing appropriate orders after hearing all the stakeholders, as expeditiously as possible and as per the provisions of CPC. As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.