JUDGMENT

P.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. 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 constructed thereon and not to demolish or take any steps for removal of the constructions. An interim injunction along the same lines to enure during the suit was sought. That application was opposed. Respondent 3, in turn sought an injunction restraining the petitioner-plaintiff from putting up any construction outside an area of 16,000 sq ft. The trial court granted an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner but confined it to an area of 16,000 sq ft and the construction thereon and also restrained him from putting up any construction outside it but included in the plaint schedule. The petitioner appealed against those orders and the Additional District Judge allowed the appeals and modifying the order of injunction granted by the trial court, made the injunction operative in respect of the entire plaint schedu