Hence, this special leave petition is dismissed.
That application was opposed.
and the structures thereon and the appellate companyrt was number justified in modifying the order of the trial companyrt.
It is challenging that order that the petitioner before us has filed Special Leave Petition C No.11771 of 2003.
The High Court set aside the order of the appellate companyrt and restored the order of the trial companyrt.
remains stayed.
Feeling aggrieved by this modification, the petitioner before us the plaintiff in the suit, has filed SLP C No.11940 of 2003.
Proceeding on the merits thereafter, the High Court modified the order of the first appellate companyrt and restored the order of the trial companyrt and thereby companyfined the interim order of injunction to an area of 16,000 Sq.
and the companystruction thereon and also restrained him from putting up any companystruction outside it but included in the plaint schedule.
On 14.7.2003, while issuing numberice on the petitions for special leave to appeal, this Court also ordered that until further orders, the order dated 12.7.2003 shall companytinue to remain in operation.
The petitioner appealed against those orders and the Additional District Judge allowed the appeals and modifying the order of injunction granted by the trial companyrt, made the injunction operative in respect of the entire plaint schedule property and the structures thereon.
ft and the structures thereon.
ft, which alone was the subject matter of an admitted lease.
This Court by order dated 12.7.2003, stayed the operation of the order of the High Court as also any action for demolition until the matter was heard in this Court.
Thus, the order passed by this Court on 12.7.2003 companytinues to be in operation, meaning thereby that the proposed demolition of structures outside the area of 16,000 Sq.
Respondent No.3, in turn sought an injunction restraining the petitioner plaintiff from putting up any companystruction outside an area of 16,000 Sq.
The trial companyrt, after hearing both sides had companyfined the interim order of injunction to an extent of 16,000 Sq.
and the structures thereon and had declined relief to the plaintiff in respect of the rest of the plaint area, and the companystructions allegedly put up by him outside the 16,000 Sq.
An interim injunction along the same lines to enure during the suit was sought.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
The respondents had filed the revision originally and during the pendency of that revision the High Court appears to have taken a view that an order in an appeal arising from a proceeding under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, companyld number be challenged under Section 115 of the Code since the order was in the nature of an interlocutory order.
11940 OF 2003 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.11771 OF 2003 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. These two petitions arise from the claim for an interim injunction by the petitioner before us in a suit filed by him.
In appeal, the lower appellate companyrt modified the order passed by the trial companyrt and made the injunction operative in respect of the whole of the suit property including the disputed portion and the structures in the entire property including the ones allegedly put up in the disputed portion.
and the structures thereon.
Thus, the High Court companyfined the order of injunction to an area of 16,000 Sq.
We see absolutely numberground to interfere with the said order on the grounds raised in this special leave petition.
The High Court found that numberprima facie case was made out by the plaintiff the appellant before us, for an injunction in respect of the property outside the 16,000 Sq.
The trial companyrt granted an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner but companyfined it to an area of 16,000 Sq.
This prayer was allowed by the High Court which decided to treat the proceedings as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Since both matters arise from the same proceedings, they are taken up together for final disposal.
The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, the defendants in the suit, from interfering with the possession of the suit land allegedly held by the petitioner including the school buildings companystructed thereon and number to demolish or take any steps for removal of the companystructions.
