Order of status quo is well within scope of main suit.

The challenge in this Revision Petition is the correctness of the order of status dated 210. 2006, passed in I.A.No.14908 of 2005 in O.S.No.5558 of 2001, based on the memo filed by the respondents herein.

.2. The suit has been filed by the petitioner herein and 5 others against the respondents

.1 and 4 and others herein for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from entering the lands of the plaintiffs or putting up any compound wall or so called development works in respect of the plots belonging to the plaintiffs.

3. According to the revision petitioners, all the plot owners formed a Welfare Society and the second respondent was elected as the President. But the second respondent was functioning in an autocratic manner and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 17. 1999 with the first respondent, Promoter, which was not backed by consent of all the plot owners. Consequently, the second respondent himself cancelled the above MOU. A Power of Attorney was also executed by the second respondent to obtain NOC from the Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS). Apart from that 20 plot owners had entered into individual agreement with the first respondent to develop their respective plots. However, the petitioners had not developed any such agreement. While so, the second respondent with the assistance of the first respondent started putting up a compound wall which necessitated the petitioners to file the suit.

4. Pending the suit the first respondent/Promoter filed I.A., for interim injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from alienating their plots 21,20,22 and 28 to any third party buyers and also dealing in any manner that would hamper and jeopardise the project work undertaking by it in the said Colony. However, no interim injunction was granted by the trial court since no prima facie case had been made out by the first respondent. When the said I.A., was being periodically adjourned, the first respondent filed a memo on 210. 2006 contending that the plaintiffs with the rowdy elements trying to interfere with the possession of the first respondent and making attempts to enter into the suit properties which would infringes the right of the respondents/defendants but also causes nuisance to the other plot owners and prayed for interim order to carry out the project work at the plots.

.5. The trial court after hearing the counsel of the respondents/defendants granted the order of status quo and posted the matter to 30.10.2006 for hearing the arguments of the petitioners/plaintiffs. According to the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners, the order of status quo was granted in the memo filed by the respondents is beyond the scope of the suit as well as I.A., which is for an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from alienating their respective plots, particularly when there is no dispute as to the ownership of the respective plots. The order is a non speaking one line ex parte order. Further, according to the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners, the order of status quo based on the memo, without there being an affidavit and petition, and when the defendants have not asserted any right to the property either in the form of a separate suit or counter claim cannot be granted against the plaintiffs, which would ultimately amount to granting a greater relief than what could be granted in the suit itself.

.6. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the first respondent contended that the CRP filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India itself is not maintainable since such jurisdiction could be invoked only under extraordinary circumstances and in the instant case there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court as it has exercised the jurisdiction vested with it in the course of administration of justice under the given circumstances and the said order is appealable and therefore invoking the superv