1. The respondent filed O.S.No.386 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Muvattupuzha against the petitioners for declaration of title and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property. The suit was filed on 21.8.2009. Along with the suit, I.A.No.2310 of 2009 for temporary injunction and I.A.No.2311 of 2009 for appointment of a Commissioner were filed. A Commissioner was appointed as per the order dated 22.8.2009. In the injunction application, notice was ordered and the application was posted to 10.9.2009. On 10.9.2009 the following order was passed.

"The respondent appeared. No objection filed. Parties are directed to maintain status quo as noted by the Commissioner until further orders. For objection if any and hearing to 21.10.2009".

2. On 8.9.2009 the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2417 of 2009 to appoint a Commissioner. In the application for appointing a Commissioner, the plaintiff stated that after the date of first inspection, the defendants cut down trees and committed mischief. I.A.No.2417 of 2009 was filed for a direction to the Commissioner to ascertain the changes affected to the property, the details of the trees cut etc.

3. On 10.9.2009, the court below allowed I.A.No.2417 of 2009 and appointed the same Commissioner to inspect the property.

4. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.2844 of 2009 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the defendants altered the status quo of the suit property, in flagrant violation of the status quo order passed by the court. The petitioners/defendants filed objections to that application. The court below, by the order impugned in this Original Petition, allowed the application and directed the defendants to remove the shed constructed by them in the plaint schedule property.

5. The court below found in the order impugned that on 10.9.2009, an order of status quo as noted by the Commissioner was passed. It was also found by the court below that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the first defendant transferred the property in favour of his son, who was impleaded as supplementary second defendant. It was held that the second defendant was also bound by the order of status quo passed by the court below.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the first time, an order of status quo was passed on 5.10.2009 and no order was passed on 10.9.2009. He also submitted that the shed was constructed after 10.9.2009 and before 5.10.2009. The counsel submitted that the order of status quo was not violated and therefore, the court below was not justified in passing the order impugned.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that an order of status quo was passed on 10.9.2009 and the offending acts were committed after the date of the order. The counsel submitted that the Commissioner inspected the property thrice. On 10.9.2009, the counsel appeared for the defendants before the court below. The defendants were aware of the order passed by the court below. The offending acts were committed by the defendants in flagrant violation of the status quo order. The construction was made to overreach the process of the court and to deny the plaintiffs the fruits of the order passed by the court below.

8. As there arose dispute as to the date on which the order of status quo was passed, the records were called for from the court below. It is seen from the application for injunction that an order of status quo was passed on 10.9.2009. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the A Diary does not show that such an order was passed on 10.9.2009. Certified copy of the entries in Diary Register (A) on 10.9.2009 and 5.10.2009 were produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The entry on 10.9.2009 is as follows:

"Defendant appeared through Advocate Prasad M.Baby. I.A.2417 of 2009 allowed. Advocate Remya A.Ravi is appointed. Pay Rs.1,000/- as C.B. For CR and writ