JUDGMENT : (Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) 1. Heard Sri Vamsi Krishna B., learned counsel representing Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the appellants are the defendant Nos.1 and 3 respectively in the suit O.S.No.40 of 2024 pending in the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole. 3. Plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree against defendants/ present appellants for the following reliefs: (a) All the defendants are in joint and severally liable to pay suit claim of Rs. 4 crores (Rupees Four Crores only) towards total damages as claimed by the plaintiff with reasonable interest (b) Costs of the suit (c) For any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court as deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. The plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.358 of 2024 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., restraining the defendants from causing further damage to the college premises and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. 5. Learned trial Court by the order under challenge dated 10.05.2024 issued ex parte ad-interim injunction while issuing notice to the defendants/appellants directing compliance of Order 39 Rule 3(a) C.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order dated 10.05.2024 is without recording reasons and contrary to the mandate of Rule 3 of Order 39 C.P.C. 7. Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C., reads as under: 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order dated 10.05.2024 is without recording reasons and contrary to the mandate of Rule 3 of Order 39 C.P.C. 7. Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C., reads as under: 3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party- The Court shall in all case, 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 8. A bare reading of proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C., shows that where it is proposed to grant injunction without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 (3) SCC 161 , on the power of grant of injunctions, at the stage of without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected held that when the Statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Court cannot ignore that. 10. Paras 32 to 34 of the order of Shiv Kumar Chadha (1supra) reads as under: 32. Power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. Power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in all cases the court shall, before grant of an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying 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 ...". 33. It has come to our notice that in spite of the aforesaid statutory requirement, the courts have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or hearing the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the reasons for passing such orders. It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that court has prejudged the issues involved in the suit. According to us, this is a misconception about the nature and the scope of interim orders. It need not be pointed out that any opinion expressed in connection with an interlocutory application has no bearing and shall not affect any party, at the stage of the final adjudication. Apart from that now in view of the proviso to Rule 3 aforesaid, there is no scope for any argument. When the statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the court cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant. 34. The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. 34. The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Before the proviso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said "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". The proviso was introduced to provide a condition, where court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, being of the opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated by delay. The condition so introduced is that the court "shall record the reasons" why an ex parte order of injunction was being passed in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this background, the requirement for recording the reasons for grant of ex parte injunction, cannot be held to be a mere formality. This requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to exercise either under a statute or under the common law, must be informed why instead of following the requirement of Rule 3, the procedure prescribed under the proviso has been followed. The party which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for grant of an order of restraint against a party, without affording an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the court about the gravity of the situation an court has to consider briefly these factors in the ex parte order. We are quite conscious of the fact that there are other statutes which contain similar provisions requiring the court or the authority concerned to record reasons before exercising power vested in them. In respect of some of such provisions it has been held that they are required to be complied with but non- compliance therewith will not vitiate the order so passed. But same cannot be said in respect of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39. The Parliament has prescribed a particular procedure for passing of an order of injunction without notice to the other side, under exceptional circumstances. Such ex parte orders have far-reaching effect, as such a condition has been imposed that court must record reasons before passing such order. The Parliament has prescribed a particular procedure for passing of an order of injunction without notice to the other side, under exceptional circumstances. Such ex parte orders have far-reaching effect, as such a condition has been imposed that court must record reasons before passing such order. If it is held that the compliance with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the proviso by the Parliament shall be a futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be a surplusage for all practical purposes. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, attracts the principle, that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not all. This principle was approved and accepted in well-known cases of Taylor v. Taylor ((1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJ Ch 373) and Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor ( AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : 63 IA 372 : 37 Cri LJ 897). 11. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has recorded that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs and also that if the notice is ordered, the delay would defeat the purpose of the suit, but for such of its opinion, the reasons have not been recorded. The appellants' counsel has rightly submitted that the reasons have not been assigned and the order is contrary to the statutory mandate. 12. The Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in CMA.Nos.230 of 2021 and batch, which has been decided considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha (supra) supports the case of appellants. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs fairly concedes that the impugned order does not contain the reasons. 14. He further submits that the matter may be remitted to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration. This submission cannot be accepted. The stage of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. is now over. The appellants have already appeared before the trial Court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants shall file objections to the I.A.No.358 of 2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., within a period of one week. 16. This submission cannot be accepted. The stage of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. is now over. The appellants have already appeared before the trial Court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants shall file objections to the I.A.No.358 of 2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., within a period of one week. 16. We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if by setting aside the impugned order, direction is issued to the learned trial Court to decide the temporary injunction application. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 is set aside and the appeal is allowed only on the ground that the reasons were not assigned in the impugned order. 18. The trial Court shall decide the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., expeditiously, within a period of four weeks. The appellants shall positively file their response, as undertaken, in one week. If the appellants fail to file response, it shall be open for the trial Court to consider the temporary injunction application and pass ex parte order in accordance with law. 19. We clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the temporary injunction matter eitherway. 20. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.