JAMES CHENNATTU Vs. VEKKECHALIL MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONCURRENT orders passed on an application for interim mandatory injunction in a suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction are under challenge. The courts below have on the basis of Exts.C1 to C3 reports of the Advocate Commissioner held that the status quo has been altered since the date of filing of the suit by demolishing the compound wall on the northern and southern side as well as by laying a road after cutting the trees.

(2.) IT is trite law that an order for interim mandatory injunction could be passed for restoring the status quo ante as on the date of suit. Therefore the courts below cannot be faulted with in directing the construction of the compound walls on the northern and the southern side and restoring the property to its original position as on the date of suit.

(3.) I modify the impugned orders and permit the respondent/plaintiff to construct the compound walls on the northern and southern side and restore the property to its original position. This will ofcourse be without prejudice to the contentions of either parties in the suit.