Heard.

2. This is plaintiffs application challenging the order of the trial court by which the trial court has not agreed to restore status quo as on the date of filing of injunction application.

3. The principal defendant no.1 has appeared as opposite party.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that she was using a small passage for entering upon or existing from her land and the defendant was obstructing ingress and egress unauthorisedly.

5. The Suit was filed on 28.9.2000 for permanent injunction and other reliefs. On 24.8.2001 on behalf of the petitioner an application was filed for appointment of Pleader Commissioner to submit a report with regard to the petitioner's land and the said alleged passage and physical feature. On 3.9.2001 the Pleader Commissioner submitted his report. In this report it was mentioned that there was a passage capable being used by the plaintiff. In the report it is also mentioned that the defendants were asked to co-operate but they refused. Apparently on strength of the said report on 7.9.2001 an application under Order 39 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the plaintiff for injuncting the defendants from obstructing the passage being used by the plaintiff till final decision in the Suit. I may mention here that on this very day the defendants appeared in the court and accepted notice of injunction. It is then alleged by the plaintiff that on 9.9.2001 taking advantage of there being no restrain order was made obstructing the passage of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this fact to the notice of Court and prayed that pending hearing of the application the defendants be restrained from making construction and for removal of obstruction created during the pendency of the injunction application. On 1.10.2001 the trial court, pending hearing of the injunction application, granted status quo which was extended last upto 15.10.2001. In the meantime it appears that the trial court appointed a second Pleader Commissioner to report upon the veracity of plaintiff's application that construction had been made during the pendency of the injunction application. The said report is dated 5.10.2001 and was filed in the court on 15.10.2001. The said report clearly indicates that there has been some very fresh and recent construction obstructing the passage. On the basis of the said report on 15.10.2001 the plaintiff filed application for removal of recent construction made after filing of the injunction application and thus restoring status quo as on the day of application. Their prayer was that injunction application having been filed to the notice of the concerned defendant, they had taken steps to frustrate the said application and make it infructuous which is not permissible and till such time the court decides upon the merit of the injunction application, the status quo must be restored because if the status quo is not restored as on the day of filing of injunction application then by the act of defendant no. 1 the injunction application shall become infructuous. On 19.10.2001 a rejoinder was filed by defendant no.1 and ultimately the impugned order was passed.

6. I have perused the impugned order The trial court has totally misdirected itself in consideration of the question in issue. The issue raised by the plaintiff was that his injunction application for injuncting the defendant from obstructing his passage during the pendency of suit has been rendered infructuous by conscious and deliberate act of defendant no. 1 after having received the notice of injunction application having been filed. This clearly amounts to over-reach the court in the matter which was sub-judice to the knowledge of defendant no.1. The question at this stage which ought to have been enquired into was as to when was obstruction was made. The question was not with regard to right to make construction/obstruction because the rights of parties are to be determined in the suit at a later stage. If a party had knowingly and