JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. When a plaintiff rushed to the civil court for an ex-parte interim order of injunction against some of the defendants and obtained it, those defendants rushed to the High Court to get that order quashed. Both parties succeeded in their respective endeavour and now both of them accuse each other for the course adopted by the other. This appeal is by special leave at the instance of the plaintiff.

3. The subject matter of the litigation is a property bearing Door No. 177 to 182 on the Big Street at Triplicane in Madras (now Chennai). At this stage and in this appeal it is necessary to narrate the facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint nor by the contesting first defendant in answer thereto regarding the right to the suit property. Suffice it to say that plaintiff claims to be a lessee under one S. Alagu (who is arrayed as 6th defendant in the suit) in respect of the property and on that strength he claimed to be in possession of the property. He alleged that the defendants 1 to 5 have been threatening to dispossess him.

4. Appellant-plaintiff filed the suit on 25.6.1999 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from