Aggrieved by Ext.P10 order, dated 7.12.2017, in I.A.No.3200 of 2016 in O.S.No.245 of 2016 of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla, refusing to consider the prayer for mandatory injunction, the plaintiffs came up with this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The allegation is that after the institution of the suit an exparte commission was issued at the instance of the plaintiffs, who in turn visited the property and prepared a mahazar and plan wherein the non-existence of a pathway as alleged by the defendants was also reported, but interim injunction was not granted at that time, which has resulted in the demolition of the structures in a portion of the property and construction of a new pathway. So, a second commission was also issued, who in turn visited the property and prepared a rough sketch, mahazar and report. Though the lower court has granted a permanent prohibitory injunction, based on Ext.P8 order passed by this court, the prayer for granting interim mandatory injunction was not considered at that stage. When it was brought to the notice of the lower court, a single line order has been passed after narrating the factual situation inv