ORDER :- What is sought to be revised by the revision applicants, who were the original defendants, is the order of the District Judge, Panaji, dated September 17, 1976. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners/defendants praying that the defendants be ordered to demolish the wall mentioned in the suit. The plaintiff also prayed that "by a mandatory interim injunction the defendants be ordered to break immediately a portion of the wall corresponding to the door of the outhouse, to the gate of the compound wall and the extension from the curtain wall of the latrine to the wall of Gonsalves, which is the opening of access to pigs and they be further ordered to make openings in the wall at least in correspondence with the opening existing in the compound wall of the plaintiff for the drainage of monsoon waters". That prayer of the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court and was granted by the District Court in appeal.

2. The first ground on which Shri Rebello relies is that no appeal would lie from the order of the lower court passed under S. 151, C. P. C. and no mandatory injunction ordering the demolition of a wall or of its portion can be granted unde