Th scope of Order 39 rule 4 CPC is limited, as held in Krishan Kumar Agarwala v.

Reserve
Bank of India AIR 1991 Cal. 272 that where an interim order has been made after giving the
party affected an opportunity of being heard, such an order is ordinarily not to be discharged
or varied unless such discharge or variation has been necessitated by a change in the
circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship. But
when such an interim order has been made ex parte without giving the party affected an
opportunity of being heard, the aggrieved party is entitled to object to its continuance and to
ask for its vacation or variation on any ground available under the facts and the law and not
merely on the ground of any change of circumstances or the order causing undue hardship.
This principle has now been expressly enacted in the second Proviso to Rule 4 of Order 39 of
the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of 1976.
Dr. Chander Singh vs Gyan Prakash AIR 1998 Raj 275
The non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner-defendant seeking
a relief that the petitioner-defendant be restrained from raising construction over the plot in
dispute particularly in the area earmarked for the set-backs. It may be stated that the learned
Addl. District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in his order ordered for maintaining status quo in the set-
back area of 10 ft. The case of the petitioner is that after passing of the above order
maintaining status quo, the petitioner did not go ahead with any new construction but after
lapse of long period after passing of the above order, the structure began to deteriorate. He,
therefore, moved an application tinder Order 39. Rule 4, CPC seeking permission of the
Court for carrying out a finishing work like plaster etc., which was absolutely necessary for
the maintenance of the structure already made. The petitioner-defendant never intended to
make any construction in the garb of the above application. The application was resisted by
the plaintiff-non-petitioner. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 13-2-97 allowed the
application of the petitioner-defendant and permitted the defendant to carry out necessary
finishing work etc. for maintenance of the structure without making any new construction.
The defendant was also asked to complete the same within a period of 15 days. The plaintiff-
non-petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court. The
learned appellate Court by the impugned order reversed the order of the trial Court mainly on
the ground that the trial Court committed an error in exercising its jurisdiction inasmuch as
the case of the petitioner-defendant did not fall within the ambit of Order 39, Rule 4, CPC.
The learned appellate Court categorically made reference to the fact that the defendant-
petitioner had some grievance at the time of passing the impugned order which he now
agitated by filing an application purporting to be under Order 39, Rule 4. CPC. the petitioner-
defendant has not stated whether there was any change in the circumstances of the case. The
necessary repair like plaster etc. was even due when the Court passed the order maintaining
status quo. It cannot be again said that after passing of the above order, the matter is still
pending decision. However, I feel that there was no justification for the trial Court to have
passed the above order because the above order does not fall within the proviso to Rule 4 of
Order 39, CPC as there has been no change in the circumstances. The circumstances were
almost the same when the order maintaining status quo was passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge.
Ompal Singh vs Smt. Chandrawali Chandel
After orders were passed in a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, there has been
change in circumstances and, therefore, in exercising jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 4
CPC, the court below has not committed any error, a perusal of the order passed by the trial
court as contained in Annexure-P3 dated 28.7.2015, it is clear that while granting injunction
in Paragraph-8, the learned court below has not adverted to record any reason or justification
to show that after proceedings were held under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, there is any change
circumstances, which warranted reconsideration of the matter in a proceeding under Order 39
Rule 4 CPC. In the absence of changed circumstances being pleaded, established or found to
be existing and in the absence of any specific finding that there is change in circumstances,
grant of injunction under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was not permissible and if such an order has
been interfered with, I see no reason to interfere into the matter warranting reconsideration.
Accordingly, finding no ground, the petition stands dismissed.