Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by the defendants/ petitioners assailing one of the interim order dt. 12.12.2012 extending the interim order dt. 29.10.2012 which has been passed after hearing the parties. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants/petitioners along with certain other proforma defendants along with the application for temporary injunction. The ld.Trial Judge taking note of the submissions made was of the view, vide his order dt. 29.10.2012, that it will be in the interest of justice to restrain the defendant No. 9 not to proceed or take any action on the application filed by the defendants 1 -8 for their registration and status quo be maintained. However, the interim order dt. 29.10.2012 was for a limited period upto 05.11.2012. On 05.11.2012, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was posted on 21.11.2012 and on the said date of hearing, the defendants -petitioners sought time to file reply to the application and the matter was posted on 07.12.2012. On the said date also the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was posted for 8th January, 2013.
(2.) HOWEVER , at this stage, when the respondent -plaintiff came to know that the interim order dt. 29.10.2012 has not been extended, he moved misc. application on which the ld.Trial Judge passed an order on 12.12.2012 to continue the interim order dt. 29.10.2012 and fixed the matter for 08.01.2013, next date already fixed and thereafter the interim order is being extended in the presence of the parties. The main thrust of submission of counsel for petitioners is that once the matter was posted for 08.01.2013 because of the fact that Presiding Officer was on leave, if at all there was any occasion arose to prepone the mailer, they ought to have been served and interim order initially granted on 29.10.2012 could not have been extended in their absence.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the order dt. 29.10.2012 was passed after hearing the parties and it escaped from their notice that interim injunction has not been extended and since the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was posted for 08.01.2013, immediately when the Presiding Officer resumed, application was filed on which impugned order was passed extending the interim order obviously for the date already fixed.;