( 1 ) THE Subordinate Judge at narasaraopet on appeal directed the defendant (the revision petitioner or herein to restore a spout at point in the plaint plan and the defcndant was restrained from interfering with that device pending suit. That order is attacked in the revision petition as having been passed by the Court in excess of juisdiction and void. It is argued such an crc er pending the trial determines the issue fimally and leaves nothing more to be decided ard in an interlocutory application the court ought not to have passed such an order which amounts to prejudging the issue in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff alleged the defendant removed the spout at point V and closed the hole which results in the obstruction of rain water. Therefore pending the suit a mandatory injunction was sought to restore the spout to its quondam position. The District Munsif dismissed the interlocutory petition on the consideration of convenience but in appeal the petition was ordered.

( 3 ) THE question at issue is whether courts have the power to order such mandatory injunction power trial of the suit.

( 4 ) IN England there was a doubt about such a power prior to the passing of Judicature A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document