JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S.K.Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 26/03/2021 passed in Misc. Appeal No.1/2021 whereby the ad-interim ex-parte order dated 04/02/2021 passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 12/2021 arising out of Title Suit No. 19/2021 by the Munsiff No. 1, Sonitpur, Tezpur was interfered with. 3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the petitioner herein was permitted to run a petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Agarwalla Barua and Co. on the basis of an irrecoverable General Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016 executed by the respondent herein, who was the proprietor of the said petrol pump M/s Agarwalla Barua and Co. The period which was mentioned in the irrecoverable General Power of Attorney was 5 years but as per the date mentioned therein, the period of the validity of the Powers of Attorney was from 31/01/2017 to 31/03/2020. Certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent for which a suit was filed seeking various declarations and for permanent injunction. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 26/2020. Along with the said suit an injunction application was also filed, which was registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 27/2020, wherein an order of ad-interim temporary injunction was sought directing the opposite party therein (the respondent herein), his men, agents; disturbing the peaceful possession in the management and supervision of the filling station and from making earning therefrom etc till the expiry of the irrecoverable General Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016 and thereafter till the accounts between the parties are settled and the money in full paid to the petitioner and to the creditor from whom the loan has been obtained. It is an admitted fact that the Trial Court did not grant any injunction in the said injunction petition registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 27/2020. 4. Subsequent thereto by the Deed of Revocation of the Power of Attorney dated 30/06/2020 the respondent cancelled the Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016. It is an admitted fact that the Trial Court did not grant any injunction in the said injunction petition registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 27/2020. 4. Subsequent thereto by the Deed of Revocation of the Power of Attorney dated 30/06/2020 the respondent cancelled the Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016. Be it be mentioned herein that both the irrecoverable Power of Attorney as well as the Deed of Revocation of the Power of Attorney were not registered. 5. During the pendency of the said suit i.e. Title Suit No. 26/2020 the petitioner herein was removed from operating of the said petrol pump on 29/07/2020. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was dispossessed whereas the case of the respondent herein is that pursuant to the revocation of the Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016 the petitioner did not have any authority to remain in control of the affairs of the petrol pump and as such the respondent took over the control of the management and operation of the petrol pump in question. 6. Thereupon the said suit being Title Suit No. 26/2020 as well as the miscellaneous application being Misc. (J) Case No. 27/2020 was withdrawn and another suit being Title Suit No. 19/2021 was filed. Though in the nomenclature of the suit it has to be mentioned therein that it is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but from the prayers made therein, it shows that it was not just a suit under Section 6 of the said Act of 1963 as it included various other reliefs pertaining to declaration; settlement of accounts as well as for permanent injunction. It may also be relevant herein to mention that the reliefs sought for in the newly instituted suit being Title Suit No. 19/2021 were similar to the relief sought for in Title Suit No. 26/2020, save and except the relief in Title Suit No. 26/2020 was seeking a decree for declaration that the irrecoverable General Power of Attorney shall remain operative till the accounts are settled between the parties and every single money found due is paid to the plaintiff by the defendants, whereas, the relief sought for in the newly instituted suit at Sl. No.(i) was a decree for declaration that the plaintiff has been illegally dispossessed on 29/07/2020 from M/s Agarwalla Barua and Co. No.(i) was a decree for declaration that the plaintiff has been illegally dispossessed on 29/07/2020 from M/s Agarwalla Barua and Co. a filling station (petrol pump) and the land over which the said filing station stands and on such declaration to pass necessary decree for restoring the plaintiff in possession of the filing station and the land beneath it. 7. Along with the suit an injunction application was filed, which was registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 12/2021. By way of the said injunction proceeding a temporary injunction preventing/prohibiting the opposite part (the respondent herein), his men, agents etc from running and managing the filling station M/s Agarwalla Barua and Co. till the disposal of the suit in view of the fact that the possession of the filling station has been taken over through illegal means and with force from the petitioner. A perusal of the said injunction application do not however show that the petitioner sought waiver of the mandatory notice as is required under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no averment in the said injunction application to that effect that the object of granting of an injunction would be defeated if the notice which is required to be given to the opposite party is not waived. 8. The Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Sonitpur, Tezpur which is the Trial Court vide an ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 04/02/2021 without taking into consideration the mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3 which is paramount if the Court proposes to pass an ad-interim ex-parte injunction order directed the opposite party (the respondent herein) to refrain from running the filling station from 4/2/2021 and consequently maintain status quo till further orders of the Court. Further to the surprise the Trial Court fixed the matter on 6/3/2021 for service report/appearance of the opposite party (the respondent herein) without taking into consideration the provision of Order XXXIX Rule 3A which mandates that when an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavor to finally dispose off the application within 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted. 9. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court which was registered and numbered as CRP (I/O) No. 18/2021. 9. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court which was registered and numbered as CRP (I/O) No. 18/2021. This Court vide an order dated 15/02/2021 did not interfere with the order dated 4/2/2021 passed by the Munsiff No. 1 on the ground that against an order of interlocutory injunction an alternative and efficacious remedy is available in the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. The respondent herein thereafter immediately moved the First Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 1 challenging the order dated 04/02/2021 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Tezpur in Misc. (J) Case No. 12/2021 arising out of Title Suit No. 19/2021. The said appeal was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 1/2021. The First Appellate Court vide an order dated 26/03/2021 allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order dated 04/02/2021 passed by the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Tezpur. The First Appellate Court also did not take into consideration that the order dated 4/2/2021 was an order passed ex-parte and the limited question involved therein was as to whether the injunction so granted was so urgent that without notice the said injunction had to be granted or not. From a perusal of the First Appellate Court’s order it reveals that the entire injunction matter was decided by the First Appellate Court. After the order dated 26/3/2021, the certified copy was obtained on 8/4/2021 as is apparent from Annexure-7 to the Revision Application. Thereafter, on 03/12/2021 after a lapse of more than 8 months the instant application for revision was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court had vide order dated 8/12/2021 issued notice making it returnable by 6(six) weeks and till the returnable date, the judgment and order dated 26/3/2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Misc. Appeal No. 1/2021 was stayed and the order dated 4/2/2021 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 12/2021 by the Munsiff No.1, Tezpur, Sonitpur was observed that it shall be in force. 11. As the order dated 8/12/2021 was passed ex-parte the respondent filed an application on 21/12/2021 seeking vacation, modification and/or alteration of the order dated 8/12/2021 in the instant proceedings by way of an interlocutory application, which has been registered and numbered as IA (C) No. 2371/2021. 12. 11. As the order dated 8/12/2021 was passed ex-parte the respondent filed an application on 21/12/2021 seeking vacation, modification and/or alteration of the order dated 8/12/2021 in the instant proceedings by way of an interlocutory application, which has been registered and numbered as IA (C) No. 2371/2021. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and taking into consideration that the matter can be disposed of at this stage itself, the interlocutory application so filed for vacation, modification and/or alteration of the order dated 8/12/2021 need not be gone into, more so taking into consideration that the order dated 4/2/2021 is an order passed ex-parte and the application for injunction is still pending adjudication before the Trial Court. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Singh submits that the petitioner was dispossessed illegally from the filling station as well as from the land upon which the filling station is situated without following the due process more so when a suit being Title Suit No. 26/2020 as well as the injunction application was pending before the Trial Court. He further submits that the irrecoverable Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016 was for a period of 5 years and it was a typographical error in the irrecoverable Power of Attorney to mention the dates to be for the period from 31/1/2017 to 31/3/2020. In that regard he also drew my attention to Clause No. 4 of the said irrecoverable Power of Attorney, wherein it has also been mentioned that the petitioner was permitted to operate the bank accounts in the name and style of M/s Agarwalla Barua and Co. for a period of 5 years. He further submits that the Deed of Revocation of the Power of Attorney dated 30/6/2020 though not challenged in the present suit proceedings is contrary to the provisions of Section 202 of the Contract Act in as much as a power of attorney coupled with interest cannot be revoked by the principal. He further submits that there is a huge amount pending settlement by the respondent herein apart from the amount of Rs. 24,00,204/-which is also required to be settled and as such the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, harm and injury if the respondent is permitted to go ahead with the operation of the petrol pump during the pendency of the suit proceedings. 24,00,204/-which is also required to be settled and as such the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, harm and injury if the respondent is permitted to go ahead with the operation of the petrol pump during the pendency of the suit proceedings. As regards the delay in approaching this Court he submits that on account of the Covid protocols and the lockdown issued by the Government of Assam, the petitioner could not approach this Court immediately after the order dated 26/03/2021 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1/2021. He further submits that in spite of the order dated 8/12/2021 the respondent is still continuing with the operation of the petrol pump which is in violation of the order passed by this Court on 8/12/2021 and the said aspect also needs to be taken into consideration while deciding the application seeking modification, vacation and/or alteration of the order dated 8/12/2021 in view of the well established principles of law that not only the party who seeks equitable remedy has to approach the court with clean hands but the person who seeks to object to the grant of an equitable remedy has also to approach the court with clean hands. 14. On the other hand, Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the Irrecoverable Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016 was only valid for a period from 31/1/2017 to 31/3/2020 and the period having elapsed the petitioner had no right to continue the operation of the said petrol pump. Even otherwise, the said irrecoverable Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016 was cancelled by the Deed of Revocation of the Power of Attorney dated 30/6/2020 and under such circumstances the petitioner did not have any prima facie case to claim any rights as regards the operation of the petrol pump. He further submits that this is not a case of illegal dispossession but is rather a case by which the power having been revoked and as such the petitioner had no authority or entitlement to continue with the operation of the petrol pump for which the respondent had rightfully taken over the control and management of the said petrol pump. He further submits that this is not a case of illegal dispossession but is rather a case by which the power having been revoked and as such the petitioner had no authority or entitlement to continue with the operation of the petrol pump for which the respondent had rightfully taken over the control and management of the said petrol pump. He further submits that the present suit pending, there is no declaration or any relief sought for that the irrecoverable Power of Attorney dated 18/11/2016 is still subsisting and in fact, such relief was sought for in the earlier suit but the same was withdrawn and in absence of such declaration the petitioner did not have any prima facie case for grant of an injunction as prayed for. He further submits that the Court below in the order dated 4/2/2021 did not at all take into consideration the question of balance of convenience in the proper perspective in as much as a running petrol pump was directed to be closed down without taking into consideration, the impact it shall have of not only on the loss or inconvenience to the respondent but also on the very right to continue the said petrol pump by the respondent in as much as if the said petrol pump is stayed pending disposal of the suit, the license which has been granted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to the respondent may be cancelled or some other persons may be issued license by the IOCL and this would cause irreparable loss, harm and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. He further submits that the Court below while passing the order dated 4/2/2021 did not take into consideration that the loss which would occasion to the respondent for not running the petrol pump cannot be compensated subsequently as a cause of the suit in as much as on everyday of closing down the operation of the petrol pump the respondent would incur huge losses in his business. He further submitted that the Appellate Court had duly taken into consideration those aspects of the matter while setting aside the order dated 4/2/2021 for which no interference is called for. 15. I have perused the materials on record as well as have taken into consideration the respective submission made by the parties. 16. He further submitted that the Appellate Court had duly taken into consideration those aspects of the matter while setting aside the order dated 4/2/2021 for which no interference is called for. 15. I have perused the materials on record as well as have taken into consideration the respective submission made by the parties. 16. From a perusal of the order dated 4/2/2021 it reveals that is an order being passed ex-parte thereby granting an injunction in favour of the petitioner thereby directing that the respondent shall not carry out the operation of the petrol pump till further orders of the Court. I am surprised to see that neither in the petition seeking injunction nor in the order dated 4/2/2021 there is any mention whatsoever that the notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC is required to be dispensed with or for that matter there is any reasons cited by the Trial Court why an ex parte order is required to be passed or for that matter that if the order of injunction prayed for is not passed pending the notice the object of granting of the injunction would be defeated by delay. On that very ground the order dated 4/2/21 is interfered with by this Court. The First Appellate Court in its order dated 26/3/2021 also did not take into consideration the said vital aspect of the matter and rather went ahead with a full-fledged hearing of the injunction matter without taking notice that an injunction proceeding before the Trial Court is still pending. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that to the injunction application the respondent had already filed their objection and the injunction proceedings are fixed on 4/1/2022 before the Trial Court. Taking into consideration that the injunction proceedings are still pending before the Trial Court, it would be appropriate that without going into the respective contentions of the parties, the Trial Court is directed to dispose off the said injunction application on or before 21/1/2022 without being influenced by the order dated 4/2/2021, the judgment dated 26/3/2021 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1/2021 and the observations made in the instant order and strictly in terms with the well settled principles for grant of an injunction. It is made clear that the order dated 4/2/2021 is interfered with by this Court for the reasons abovementioned. 17. Appeal No. 1/2021 and the observations made in the instant order and strictly in terms with the well settled principles for grant of an injunction. It is made clear that the order dated 4/2/2021 is interfered with by this Court for the reasons abovementioned. 17. With the above observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.