The court emphasized the need for the trial court to decide the issue of construction during the interim order and expedite the suit within a specified timeframe.

1. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.177 of 2007, before the learned District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, against the petitioner, praying for a Judgment and Decree of perpetual injunction. The respondent wanted the petitioner not to construct a septic tank and latrine near to his Well. The Trial Court granted an interim order of status quo. The respondent alleging that during the currency of the interim order of status quo the petitioner completed construction of septic tank and latrine, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.530 of 2008 for violation of interim order of status quo. The Trial Court passed orders, on 26.11.2008, to seal the latrine in question. The order, dated 26.11.2008 in I.A.No.530 of 2008, is under challenge in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1794 of 2009.

2. Since the petitioner has completed the construction of latrine during the currency of interim order of status quo, the respondent filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.586 of 2008, to amend the plaint for the purpose of seeking a decree of mandatory injunction. The interlocutory application was allowed by the Trial Court, by order, dated 26.11.2008. The order, dated 26.11.2008 in I.A.No.586 of 2008, is under challenge in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1795 of 2009.

3. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

4. The respondent initially filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The Trial Court granted an interim order of status quo. According to the respondent, it was only during the currency of the interim order, the petitioner completed the construction of latrine in question. The respondent has placed reliance on the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in support of his contention that the entire construction was made only after granting interim order of status quo by the Trial Court. It was only under such circumstances, the Trial Court passed an order to seal the latrine in question.

5. The respondent appears to have filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.530 of 2008 against the petitioner for violation of interim order of status quo. The Trial Court is now ceased of the matter. The question as to whether the latrine was constructed during the currency of interim order of status quo is to be decided by the Trial Court while considering the interlocutory application for violation of interim order of status quo. Such being the position, the order directing to seal the premises should be vacated so as to enable the Trial Court to decide the entire issue on merits.

6. The respondent alleged that the construction of latrine in question was completed during the currency of interim order of status quo. Under such circumstances, the respondent filed an interlocutory application to amend the prayer. In view of the facts and circumstances and the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, I am of the view that the Trial Court was perfectly correct in allowing the interlocutory application.

7. In the result, the civil revision petition in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1794 of 2009 is dismissed. C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1795 of 2009 is allowed. The order, dated 26.11.2008, in I.A.No.530 of 2008, passed by the Trial Court, directing to seal the latrine in question is hereby vacated. However, I make it clear that allowing C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1795 of 2009 would not stand in the way of the respondent from proving that the construction in question was made only during the currency of interim order of status quo. Similarly, this order would not stand in the way of the Trial Court from deciding the interlocutory application filed by the respondent against the petitioner alleging violation of interim order of status quo. It is needless to point that reasonable opportunity should be given to the petitioner to file additional written statement in view of the amendment made to the plaint.

8. Since the suit is of the year 2007, the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of nine months from the dat