1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant/applicants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent.

2. Perused the record.

3. The defendant/applicants feel aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court directing the applicants to handover the possession of the room in question to the plaintiff restoring the status quo ante prevailing prior to the grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

4. During the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court on an application seeking an ad interim injunction filed by the plaintiff, issued an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the premises in dispute directing the parties to maintain status quo till the final disposal of the suit.

5. A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the trial Court had prima facie come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was continuing to be in possession of the accommodation in dispute of which a room in question formed a part.

6. On 11.4.1997, the plaintiff moved an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) asserting that the defendants had forcibly dispossessed him from the room in question and obtained the possession there of in clear defiance of the interim injunction granted in his favour by the Court which - continued to be operative. The plaintiff prayed that he be put back in possession over the room in question and a suitable direction be issued in this regard against the defendants No.3 and 4.

7. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide its impugned order came to the conclusion that the interim order of injunction granted by the trial Court had been violated by the defendants in flagrant disregard of the same, the defendants had dispossessed him from the room in question in an entirely illegal manner.

8. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where exercising the inherent jurisdiction, the status quo ante prevailing prior to the issuance of the interim injunction which had been duly served be restored back.

9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned direction had been issued as indicated hereinabove requiring the defendants No.3 and 4 to put back the plaintiff in possession over the room in question within a month.

10. The learned counsel for the defendant/applicants has strenuously urged that the impugned order is manifestly illegal as the relief of recovery of possession could not be granted without first getting the plaint amended claiming such a relief especially when the plaintiff had never sought for any relief regarding recovery of possession and had asked for a mere injunction simpliciter.

11. It has further been urged that granting of such a relief as prayed for by the plaintiff would amount to changing the nature of the suit and converting it into a suit for recovery of possession without the plaint being amended which could not be permitted.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent has however urged that in the present case, it has been established on record that the defendants had violated the interim injunction granted by the trial Court and disturbed the status quo prevailing at the time of grant of the interim injunction. In the circumstances, it is urged that the trial Court had ample jurisdiction to restore back status quo ante directing the defendants to put back the plaintiff in possession over the room in question from which he had been illegally dispossessed.

13. The learned counsel for the defendant/applicants has placed reliance in support of his submission on the decision in the case of Municipal Council, Mandleshwar v. Ramesh Mangilal Fagna, reported in 1984 MPLJ 633.

14. In the aforesaid case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 22.2.1984, and had applied for a temporary injunction also. The shop which was a subject-matter of the suit was not removed till the fili