JUDGMENT S. Harkauli, J.
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is by the defendant in Original Suit No. 385 of 2002.
3. An application for interim injunction was moved by the plaintiff in the suit. The trial court by its order dated 16.5.2002. Annexure-4 to this petition, stated that it was of the opinion after examining the record that it was not a fit case for grant of 'ex parte' interim injunction without hearing the other side and accordingly issued notices fixing 11.7.2002.
4. Against this order, the plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No. 526 of 2002, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 25.5.2002 passed by the District Judge. Allahabad.
5. While allowing the revision, the learned District Judge has directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed house till the date fixed, i.e., 11.7.2002 and also directed that the application for interim injunction be decided on merits by the trial court on the next date, i.e., 11.7.2002.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revision was not maintainable in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of U. P. Financial Corporation v. District Judge, 2001 (3) AWC 2052 : 2001 ACJ 479. Having examined the decision. I am of the opinion that the decision does not support the proposition argued namely, that an order refusing to grant 'ex parte' injunction and issuing notices does not amount to 'case decided'. The facts in the case before the Division Bench were that an application had been moved, being paper No. '50 Ga', for hearing of the injunction application '6 Ga'. The trial court directed that application (50 Ga) to be put up on the date fixed. Thus, there was no adjudication of anything but a mere fixation of date or postponement of decision. In these circumstances, the Division Bench held that the said postponement order of the trial court did not amount to 'case decided'.
7. However, in the present case the plaintiff had applied for 'ex parte' interim Injunction, but the trial court has expressly decided that the plaintiff is not entitled to ex parte' injunction and has, therefore, issued notices. This decision of the trial court that the plaintiff is not entitled to ex parte interim injunction amounts to 'case decided'.
8. In view of this. I am unable to accept the contention that the revision was not maintainable.
9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on merits of the matter. I am not Inclined to examine that contention in this ex parte motion. The interim injunction has been continuing since 22.5.2002 and the next date fixed is 11.7.2002, i.e., merely a week from now. Therefore, it would not be fair to consider the ex parte contention here. The petitioner should face a fair contest in the matter before the trial court. This writ petition is therefore, dismissed.