JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Navin Sinha and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsels assisted by Sri Mohit Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Sahai and Sri Sagar Chandra, learned Counsels for the respondent. 2. The instant first appeal from order under Order 43 Rule-1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the District Judge, Rampur in Original Suit No.1 of 2021 (Redico Khaitan Ltd. Vs. M/s India Glycols Ltd.) whereby by way of ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. restrained the appellant from manufacturing, exporting, marketing or selling its product under the bottle of “Amazing Vodka”. 3. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant raised the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal under Order 43 Rule-1 (r) C.P.C. and submitted that the proper remedy available to the defendant-appellant to file objection/application for vacating the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order as provided under Order 39 Rule-4 C.P.C. In support of his contention he placed reliance on judgment of this Court passed in the case of Gurmej Singh and others Vs. Ranjit Kaur and others reported in 2020 (12) ADJ 561 , judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1283 of 1967, (M/s Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner (Judicial)-I, Sales Tax, Kanpur Range Kanpur and another) reported in AIR 1968 SC 488 and the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S Challappan & Others reported in 2000 7 SCC 695 . 4. On the other hand, Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal under Order 43 Rule-1 (r) is maintainable. In support of his submission he placed reliance on a full bench judgment of this Court in the case of Zila Parishad, Budaun and others Vs. Brahma Rishi Sharma reported in AIR 1970 All 376 (FB). 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties on the preliminary question regarding maintainability of the appeal and gone through the record. 6. Brahma Rishi Sharma reported in AIR 1970 All 376 (FB). 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties on the preliminary question regarding maintainability of the appeal and gone through the record. 6. It reflects from the record that on 23.07.2021, the plaintiff-respondent filed Original Suit No.1 of 2021 along with an application (9-C) under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for grant of ad-interim injunction and on the same day after recording prima facie satisfaction, ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted till the next date fixing 16.08.2021 for disposal of the application after issuing notice to the respondent. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the District Judge, Rampur is quoted here-under:- “Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff has been using its Trade Mark and Trade Design in respect of MAGIC MOMENTS since 2007-2008. Whereas, it is stated by the plaintiff (by filing annexure-M) that the defendant has applied on 20.01.2021 for registration of its trade mark AMAZING proposed to be used, which has been objected. Thus, prima facie it appears that the defendant has copied the plaintiff's trademark and trade dress/label. In view of this Court the plaintiff has made out strong prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim orders of injunction. Accordingly, till the next date, the defendant are restrained from manufacturing, exporting, marketing, offering for sale, selling, advertising in any manner under the impugned bottle of Amazing which is identical or similar to the plaintiff's registered design of MAGIC MOMENTS. District Judge, Rampur.” 7. Let us now examine the scheme of Rules 1 to 4 Order XXXIX. Rules 1 and 2 provides for the making of an interim order of Injunction. Rule 3 firstly provides that an interim injunction should ordinary be granted after notice to the adversary party. Secondly, it provides that notice may be dispensed with where the Court is satisfied that it would defeat the purpose of granting an injunction. Rule 4 provides that an order of injunction may be discharged or varied or set aside on an application made by the party dissatisfied with such order. 8. It would be appropriate to take note of relevant provision of C.P.C. Order 39 Rule 3, 3-A and 4 C.P.C. and Order 43 Rule (1) (r) are quoted as under:- “Order XXXIX CPC 3. 8. It would be appropriate to take note of relevant provision of C.P.C. Order 39 Rule 3, 3-A and 4 C.P.C. and Order 43 Rule (1) (r) are quoted as under:- “Order XXXIX CPC 3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party -The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party: Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant- (a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with- (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and (b) to file on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent. 3 A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days -Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability. Allahabad - Rule 3-A shall be omitted (Vide Noti. No. 103/IV-h-360 dt. Feb. 3, 1981, w.e.f. Oct. 3, 1981. 4. Allahabad - Rule 3-A shall be omitted (Vide Noti. No. 103/IV-h-360 dt. Feb. 3, 1981, w.e.f. Oct. 3, 1981. 4. Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside-Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order: [Provided that it an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application, a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interest of justice: Provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party.] Order XLIII CPC 1. Appeals from orders- (r) an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, (Rule 2-A), Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order XXXIX. Rule 2-A Ins. By Act 104 of 1976, S. 89 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977)." (emphasis supplied) 9. As noticed above Rule 3-A stood omitted in State of Uttar Pradesh w.e.f. 03.10.1981. 10. The remedy available to the appellant is to file objection/application for setting aside the ex-parte ad-interim injunction, which was operative till the next date of listing i.e. 16.08.2021 under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. 11. Further, this Court has issued a Circular letter dated 16.08.2017 regarding time bound disposal of the interim injunction application, which is quoted as under:- "Through Registered Post/E-mail From, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, HJS, Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. To, All the District & Sessions Judges, Subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. C.L. No. 24/Admin. 'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 16.08.17 Sub: Time bound disposal of interim injunction application. Madam/Sir Hon'ble Court has directed that all the subordinate courts must ensure to dispose of applications of interim injunction within six months, failing which they shall have to record reasons in the order sheet. C.L. No. 24/Admin. 'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 16.08.17 Sub: Time bound disposal of interim injunction application. Madam/Sir Hon'ble Court has directed that all the subordinate courts must ensure to dispose of applications of interim injunction within six months, failing which they shall have to record reasons in the order sheet. I am, therefore, directed to request you to circulate the instant direction amongst all the Judicial Officers working under your supervision and control and to ensure strict compliance of the same in letter and spirit. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan) No.Admin.'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 2017. Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to: 1. The Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 2. P.S. to all the Hon'ble Judges at Allahabad and also at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to place the same before their Lordships for kind perusal. 3. The Director, Judicial Training & Research Institute, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 4. All the Judicial Officers posted in the Registry in Allahabad High Court and Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. 5. The Member Secretary, U.P. State Legal Services Authority, III floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Annexe Lucknow. 6. Section Officer, Admin. 'H' Section for compliance of guard file." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Thus, in a way, even if Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC is omitted in the State of UP, a direction to ensure disposal of interim injunction application within six months has been given by this Court. This direction appears to be to balance the equity between the parties, as on one hand, party enjoys the ex-parte temporary injunction order would be interested in prolonging the same and on the other hand, if temporary injunction is not granted, the other party would be interested in prolonging the disposal of the same. Hence, in the State of U.P. in absence of applicability of Rule 3-A thirty days time limit can be safely treated to be six months for disposal of temporary injunction application and also for the purpose of deemed inclusion of order passed in exercise of powers under Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC (after six months) in Order 43 Rule (1) (r) CPC. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra) (paragraph no.12) that appeal would not be maintainable. For ready reference paragraph nos.12, 17 & 18 of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra) are quoted hereunder:- “12. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra) (paragraph no.12) that appeal would not be maintainable. For ready reference paragraph nos.12, 17 & 18 of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra) are quoted hereunder:- “12. What would be the position if a court which passed the order granting interim ex parte injunction did not record reasons thereof or did not require the applicant to perform the duties enumerated in clauses (a) & (b) of Rule 3 of Order 39. In our view such an Order can be deemed to contain such requirements at least by implication even if they are not stated in so many words. But if a party, in whose favour an order was passed ex parte, fails to comply with the duties which he has to perform as required by the proviso quoted above, he must take the risk. Non-compliance with such requisites on his part cannot be allowed to go without any consequence and to enable him to have only the advantage of it. The consequence of the party (who secured the order) for not complying with the duties he is required to perform is that he cannot be allowed to take advantage of such order if the order is not obeyed by the other party. A disobedient beneficiary of an order cannot be heard to complain against any disobedience alleged against another party. 17. It is the acknowledged position of law that no party can be forced to suffer for the inaction of the court or its omissions to act according to the procedure established by law. Under the normal circumstances the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 of the Code in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. He cannot approach the appellate or revisional court during the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction. In such circumstances the party who does not get justice due to the inaction of the court in following the mandate of law must have a remedy. He cannot approach the appellate or revisional court during the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction. In such circumstances the party who does not get justice due to the inaction of the court in following the mandate of law must have a remedy. So we are of the view that in a case where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code is flouted, the aggrieved party, shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction, against the order remaining in force. In such appeal, if preferred, the appellate court shall be obliged to entertain the appeal and further to take note of the omission of the subordinate court in complying with the provisions of Rule 3A. In appropriate cases the appellate court, apart from granting or vacating or modifying the order of such injunction, may suggest suitable action against the erring judicial officer, including recommendation to take steps for making adverse entry in his ACRs. Failure to decide the application or vacate the ex-parte temporary injunction shall, for the purposes of the appeal, be deemed to be the final order passed on the application for temporary injunction, on the date of expiry of thirty days mentioned in the Rule. 18. Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court it is a well recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional remedy. Learned single judge need not have entertained the revision petition at all and the party affected by the interim ex parte order should have been directed to resort to one of the other remedies. Be that as it may, now it is idle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the revision petition." (emphasis supplied) 14. Be that as it may, now it is idle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the revision petition." (emphasis supplied) 14. In the present case the appeal was filed without appearing before the trial Court that too prior to the date fixed before the trial Court, therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable against the impugned order, which is for limited period. 15. Admittedly, the appellant has not filed any objection/application before the trial Court under Rule 4 of Order 39 C.P.C. to vacate the ex-parte ad-interim injunction, therefore, as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra) it cannot be said to be a final order in nature mentioned in Circular dated 16.08.2017 and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 16. The judgment of full bench cited by learned Counsel for the appellant in Zila Parishad, Budaun and others (supra) was rendered in the year 1970 that is much prior to the insertion of proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 C.P.C. and Order 39 Rule 3-A C.P.C., therefore, I am of the view that the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. before six months is not maintainable, hence, the preliminary objections raised by the Counsel for the respondent have force and, the appeal is, accordingly, not maintainable. 17. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.