Revision held not maintainable.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. This revision is directed by the second defendant against the exparte order of ad-interim injunction passed by the IV Assistant City Civil Judge, Mad. in I.A.No. 17289 of 1988. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No. 9891 of 1988 against the revision-petitioner and the Corporation of Madras, for a declaration that the construction already put up by the revision-petitioner herein is illegal and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision-petitioner from doing further construction and also for a mandatory injunction directing him to demolish the construction already put up and also to direct the Corporation of Madras to take action against the revision-petitioner. The plaintiffs prayed for ad-interim injunction in I.A.No. 17289 of 1988 restraining the revision-petitioner, who is the second defendant and his men from putting up any construction over and above the existing construction over the schedule mentioned property pending disposal of the suit. In that petition, the IV Assistant City Civil Judge passed an order as follows:

Head Perused the documents. I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to ad-interim injunction as the balance of convenience is in his favour. I therefore order ad-interim injunction and notice by 18-11-1988.

Aggrieved by the said order, this revision is filed on 15-11-1988 and an exparte order of interim suspension was obtained on 17-11-1988.

2. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner, Mr. S. Balasubramanian, is that the respondents-plaintiffs have already filed a suit against the revision-petitioner in O.S.No. 6396 of 1988 for a declaration that they are entitled to the easementary right of light and air through the window of their property and also prayed for an injunction restraining the revision-petitioner from putting up any construction over his property so as to block the window of the plaintiffs' property. While the suit was pending, they filed another suit O.S.No. 6514 of 1988 on the file of the City Civil Court against the revision-petitioner for a declaration that they are entitled to have the prescriptive easementary right to receive light and air through the ventilator and also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the revision-petitioner from putting up any construction so as to close the ventilator. Interim injunction was granted in I.A.No. 10969 of 1988 and the said application was resisted by the revision-petitioner. After hearing both the parties, the 9th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, dismissed the application. The respondents herein were unsuccessful in C.M.A.No. 196 of 1988 on the file of this Court, filed against the said order. According to the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner, the respondents herein having failed in those proceedings, have come forward with the present suit by adding the Corporation of Madras as the first defendant and they arc now fighting for the public cause. Further, if there is any violation of the sanctioned plan, it cannot be said that the entire construction is to be demolished and that is open to the revision-petitioner to convince the Corporation authorities to modify the earlier order and the sanctioned plan under Section 256(3) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. According to him, the respondents are entitled to any order of injunction and that the observation of the lower court that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents herein is not correct. It is further stated that the suit as well as the application for injunction are barred by the principle of res judicata and that the lower court has not followed the guidelines laid down by this Court in the matter of granting injunction.

3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the revision-petitioner was served with the order of injunction on 11-11-1988 and that he could have filed a counter and moved the trial cou