JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents 1 and 2 through caveat. 2. This First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, at the instance of the defendants of the Original Suit No. 1465 of 2022, has been filed assailing the order dated 1.11.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 6, Meerut in Original Suit No. 1465 of 2022, whereby, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has proceeded to pass an ex-parte ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner and maintain status quo in respect of disputed Khasra Plot No. 2075 area 1-0-0 Bigha and plot No. 2076/1 area 0-2-0 Biswa situate in Kasba Sardhana, Tehsil-Sardhana, District Meerut till the next date fixed. The plaintiffs by the impugned order have been directed to take steps for compliance under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC fixing 30.11.2022 for objections/disposal of the paper No. 6C2. 3. Shri Chatterji, learned counsel for the defendants/appellants submits that the ex-parte impugned order is patently against the law and has been passed without applying judicial mind and thus in a slipshod manner. The Court below while passing the impugned order has failed to take into consideration that the plaintiffs failed to make out any prima facie case in their favour in as much as no documents to establish their title or possession over the land was filed on record for consideration of the Court. The plaintiffs further failed to establish balance of convenience to be in their favour or that non grant of the ad interim injunction would result in irreparable loss to them. It is further contended that the plaintiffs in fact played fraud upon the Court by concealing material facts and did not approach the Court with clean hands and thus not entitled to the injunction granted by the Court below. It is thus prayed that the ex parte injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs under the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. It is thus prayed that the ex parte injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs under the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per Contra, Shri Vivek Saran, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondents 1 and 2 submits that the injunction order granted by the Court below is just and proper considering the urgency that was pleaded by the plaintiffs through application Paper No. 8C. He further submits that the injunction granted is not till disposal of the interim injunction application (paper No. 6C) but operative till the next date and time has been given to file objections to the appellants but the appellants have rushed to this Court to get the injunction vacated. It is further contended that the appellants have already appeared and filed their objections under Order 39 Rule 4 which is pending consideration. 5. Having heard the respective counsels and having perused the record as also the impugned order, the Court finds that the order under challenge is admittedly an order granting ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiffs respondents. In the opinion of the Court the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against an ex parte injunction is not maintainable. 3. Order 39 Rule 4 CPC deals with the situation at hand and provides that the order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside. The Provision of Order 39 Rule 4, as applicable in U.P., is reproduced below: "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 for reasons to be recorded, either on its own motion or, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order. 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 for reasons to be recorded, either on its own motion or, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order. Provided that if in 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 arid 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 interests 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. Provided that if at any stage of the suit it appears to the Court that party in whose favour the order of injunction exists is dilating the proceeding or is otherwise abusing the process of Court, it shall set aside the order for injunction." 7. A perusal of the Provision of Order 39 Rule 4 reveals that any party who has not been noticed, dissatisfied with an order for injunction file an application to the Court granting the injunction to discharge, vary or set aside the injunction. The right is available to the party dissatisfied if in the application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting the injunction application, knowingly false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular has been made. In such eventuality the Court is obliged to vacate the injunction unless it records reasons not to do so. Thus, the Code proceeds a remedy to the defendants-appellants herein under Order 39 rule 4 CPC to move the Court granting the injunction to discharge, vary or set aside the same. 8. In such eventuality the Court is obliged to vacate the injunction unless it records reasons not to do so. Thus, the Code proceeds a remedy to the defendants-appellants herein under Order 39 rule 4 CPC to move the Court granting the injunction to discharge, vary or set aside the same. 8. The question of maintainability an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC and Section 104 CPC against an ex-parte interim injunction order arose before the Apex Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan and others, Civil Appeal No. 5102 of 2000 decided on 19.09.2000, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 695 . The Apex Court in paras 15 and 21 observed as under: "15. 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. 21. 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. 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. 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." 9. It is not out of place to point out here that the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 39 stood omitted in its application to the State of U.P. with effect from 03/10/1981 and this Court has issued a circular dated 16.08.2017 regarding time bound disposal of interim injunction application within six months failing which reasons have to be recorded. The circular dated 16.08.2017 issued by this Court is reproduced hereunder: "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. The circular dated 16.08.2017 issued by this Court is reproduced hereunder: "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. 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) 10. In the case at hand the appellants have already put in appearance in the proceedings before the Court below and have filed their objections and have prayed for vacation of interim injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents. 11. Admittedly, the appellant has already filed objections/application before the Court below under Rule 4 of the Order 39 CPC to vacate, vary or set aside the ex-parte interim injunction, therefore as observed by the Apex Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu (Supra) the impugned order dated 08/12/2022 cannot be said to be a final order in the nature mentioned in circular dated 16/08/2017 issued by this Court in view of the Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC, the appeal is not maintainable before 6 months. 12. 12. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.However, if the Court below decides the interim injunction application (Paper No. 6-C) or for that matter rejects the objections of the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 the order so passed would be assailable in an Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC.