The court emphasized the need to exhaust the remedy of filing an appeal before invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the court under Article 227.

The petitioners/respondents/defendants have filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.09.2008 in I.A.No.3805 of 2007 in I.A.No.980 of 2007 in O.S.No.237 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Alandur in allowing the application filed by the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.3805 of 2007 has inter alia observed that since the construction has been made during the pendency of the suit, the same has to be removed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Since the respondents/defendants have not put up the construction before the interim suspension order dated 110. 2007 and as they have not obtained any treatment from the Honourable High Court to make construction during the period of interim suspension, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is to be allowed and that the contention of the respondents/defendants that they have invested huge amount and they have obtained approval plan for construction does not give any right to them to make construction during the pendency of the suit and resultantly, allowed the application.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants, the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while directing the removal of construction made by the petitioners herein pursuant to the orders of the Honourable High Court and that it is not proper on the part of the trial Court to interpret the order passed by the Honourable High Court in C.R.P.3293/07 dated 110. 2007 and also the order passed in C.R.P.3293/07 dated 011. 2007 and further that the trial Court has conducted a mini trial in the application filed by the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs and that the settled principles of law have been ignored while ordering interim mandatory injunction at the Interlocutory level and that the trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely by granting the relief at the interlocutory stage which is particular scope of the suit and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

4. It is also the contention of the revision petitioners that the petitioners herein have been permitted by this Court to proceed with the construction by reason of the suspension of the order of injunction granted against the petitioners/defendants by the trial Court in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in C.R.P.3293 of 2007 dated 110. 2007 and therefore, there is no necessity for the true and lawful owner of the property to seek permission from this Court because of the fact that the right title and entitlement of the petitioners to put up construction in their own property is not in dispute and further that the petitioners herein have laid a suit O.S.365/05 for possession as against the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs and this presupposes an illegal and unauthorized occupation of the respondents/plaintiffs to an extent of 540 sq.feet with manifests that the revision petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the remaining portion of the property viz., a total extent of 4375 sq.feet.

35. The respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.3805/07 in O.S.237/07 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Alandur inter alia stating that the suit property originally has been a vacant land and that they have entered into the suit property and put a thatched roof for the purpose of living along with their family members in 1961 and in 1980, they have put up additional pucca construction by spending an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs and that they are in possession of the suit property for the past 46 years in a visible and exclusive manner much to the hostility of the true owner and therefore, perfected title over the suit property by means of adverse possession, etc.,

6. Added further, the respondents/petitioners have also averred that I.A.980/07 in O.S.237/07 has been allowed by the tria