IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN O.S.A.NO.84 OF 2006 AND C.M.P.NO.4331 OF 2006 1.Dittakavi Anantha Padmanabhamoorthy 2.Kandhukuri Saibaba (alias) K.Saibaba 3.Kandhukuri Ramasubramanim (alias) K.Ramasubramanian (Appellants 1 to 3 rep. by Power Agent K.V.Sivaram Prasad) .. Appellants/Plaintiffs Vs. M/s.Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited, No.132, EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 .. Respondent/Defendant This O.S.A. has been preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.11.2005 made in O.A.No.633 of 2005 in C.S.No.536 of 2005. For Appellants : Mr.A.Prabhakara Reddy for M/s.A.P.R.Associates For Respondent : Mr.N.C.Ramesh - - - - JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a common order of the learned Single Judge made in O.A.Nos.633 and 634 of 2005 in C.S.No.536 of 2005. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Pending suit in C.S.No.536 of 2005 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property described in the schedule to the plaint, an application in O.A.No.633 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiffs, seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner interfering with the applicants/plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, while O.A.No.634 of 2005 was filed seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner trespassing or encroaching into the suit property. 3.The respondent/defendant filed counter, inter-alia, stating that it was only a construction agency and actually, the work was entrusted by the police department, which must be added as party and further, the property, in respect of which the relief was sought for, did not belong to the plaintiffs at all. 4.Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has appointed the Advocate Commissioner, who has also filed the report and in appraisement of the Commissioner's report, the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the applications, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 5.The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 6.It is a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Pending suit, two applications for interim injunctions were made by the plaintiffs and the counter was also made. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the property with the assistance of the Surveyor and has filed the report. Paragraph 5 of the report reads as follows: "5.It is further submitted that as per the measurements of the sale deed produced by the counsel for Applicant/plaintiff, and on measuring we found that large pits were dug by the respondent/defendant to the extent of nearly 12ft on the southern side of the schedule property for the purpose of laying foundation and another 12 feet on the southern side the debris was dumped and almost in the remaining portion of the schedule property we found that the respondent/Defendant dumped the wooden windows, doors and wooden materials." From a reading of the above, it would be quite clear that an extent of 12 x 12 feet is the area, in which the defendant has actually created large pits and also dumped the materials. Further, it would be quite clear that on the day when the Commissioner went to the spot, a particular part was with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the applications. 7.At the time when the appeal was taken up before this Court at the initial stage, there was an order passed by this Court, which runs as follows: "The sole respondent is directed to maintain Status Quo in respect of the area of 12 x 12 feet indicated in para-5 of the report of the Commissioner." Thus, it would be quite clear that an extent of 12 x 12 feet was found to be in possession of the defendant at the time of Commissioner's report. Therefore, in view of the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent has got to be directed to maintain status quo. Now, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of the Court that it was only the construction agency and the work was entrusted by the police department and the police department should be made as a party. Apart from that, once a particular area is found to be in possession of the defendant, necessary relief in this regard has got to be asked for by the plaintiffs. When the order of this Court, as referred to above, to maintain status quo was in force, it is complained by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants have encroached upon a part of it. However, the Court is of the considered opinion that taking into consideration the Commissioner's report, the Court has earlier directed that status quo was to be maintained, as referred to above. 8.Without going into the merits or otherwise of the rival contentions, the Court is of the considered opinion that the status quo has got to be maintained, keeping all the contentions to be raised before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, it is ordered. Under these circumstances, the parties are at liberty to raise their respective pleas and make necessary amendments before the learned Single Judge, if allowed in law. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. Vvk Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Sub Asst Registrar, Original Side, High Court of Madras, Chennai 104. O.S.A.NO.84 OF 2006 VM(CO) SR/31.7.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/