Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction to grant an interim order against eviction under the Public Premises Act.

1. The two petitioners in the CR under Art.227 of the Constitution of India dated January 15, 2015 are questioning an order of the Joint Civil Judge (Sr.D), Port Blair dated June 27, 2014 in the first opposite party's MJ No. 4 of 2014.

2. The Estate Officer, South Andaman, Port Blair passed an order dated December 8, 2010 against the first opposite party under S. 5(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 .

3. On December 31, 2010 the first opposite party filed a Title Suit No. 181 of 2010 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.D), Port Blair. The suit was re - numbered as Title Suit No. 22 of 2011. In para 29 of the plaint the first opposite party said that in view of the eviction order dated December 8, 2010, his cause of action arising in 1977, when he had encroached upon the Government land (the suit property) and erected a residential house and a temple using the land, was continuing.

4. The first opposite party prayed for a decree for a declaration of his possessory right, title and interest in the encroached land and a decree for regularization of his encroachment and allotment of the land to him by the defendants in the suit.

5. In his pending suit the first opposite party filed an application under O.39, Rr. (1) and (2) CPC for temporary injunction. During pendency of the temporary injunction application in which no interim order was passed, the Civil Judge dismissed the suit on December 31, 2013. On January 31, 2014 the first opposite party filed an application for restoration of the suit. The restoration application was registered as MJ No. 4 of 2014.

6. At once the first opposite party filed an application under S. 151 CPC seeking an interim order restraining the defendants in the dismissed suit from evicting him and the members of his family from the property. During the pendency of the application for restoration of suit, the Civil Judge passed the order dated June 27, 2014. The Judge restrained the defendants in the suit from disturbing the first opposite party's enjoyment of the suit property till the disposal of MJ No. 4 of 2014.

7. The two petitioners in the CR were not among the defendants in the suit. The eviction order dated December 8, 2010 had been passed by the Estate Officer on the basis of a report submitted by the first petitioner in the CR. The first opposite party filed an application in his MJ No. 4 of 2014 for addition of the two petitioners as defendants; and by an order dated September 26, 2014 the petitioners were added to the MJ. They entered appearance before the Civil Judge on December 10, 2014.

8. Mr. Tabraiz appearing for the petitioners has submitted as follows. The first opposite party fully aware of the eviction order dated December 8, 2010 at the date he instituted the suit never questioned the eviction order. The first petitioner was entitled to seek enforcement of the order and the first opposite party was not entitled to any relief in his suit as to the eviction order. The Civil Judge could not pass the interim order dated June 27, 2014; for it amounted to restraining the petitioners from enforcing the eviction order. In any case, until the suit was restored there was no scope for considering the question of any interim relief to the first opposite party.

9. Mr. Sivabalan appearing for the first opposite party has submitted as follows. The first opposite party was entitled to institute the suit seeking a decree for regularization of his encroachment. The first opposite party erected a temple using the land and the temple is the source of his livelihood. He has also created a trust and t