JUDGMENT

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.- These two petitions arise from the claim for an interim injunction by the petitioner before us in a suit filed by him. The suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, the defendants in the suit, from interfering with the possession of the suit land allegedly held by the petitioner including the school buildings constructed thereon and not to demolish or take any steps for removal of the constructions. An interim injunction along the same lines to enure during the suit was sought. That application was opposed. Respondent 3, in turn sought an injunction restraining the petitioner-plaintiff from putting up any construction outside an area of 16,000 sq ft. The trial court granted an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner but confined it to an area of 16,000 sq ft and the construction thereon and also restrained him from putting up any construction outside it but included in the plaint schedule. The petitioner appealed against those orders and the Additional District Judge allowed the appeals and modifying the order of injunction granted by the trial court, made the injunction operative in respect of the entire plaint schedule property and the structures thereon. The respondents originally filed a revision invoking Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") before the High Court challenging the order of the first appellate court. In view of a decision rendered by the High Court that no revision under Section 115 of the Code could be entertained against an order of injunction since the order was purely interlocutory in nature, the respondents herein sought a conversion of their revision into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. This prayer was allowed by the High Court which decided to treat the proceedings as one under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is challenging that order that the petitioner before us has filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11771 of 2003. Proceeding on the merits thereafter, the High Court modified the order of the first appellate court and restored the order of the trial court and thereby confined the interim order of injunction to an area of 16,000 sq ft and the structures thereon. Feeling aggrieved by this modification, the petitioner before us, the plaintiff in the suit, has filed SLP (C) No. 11940 of 2003. Since both the matters arise from the same proceedings, they are taken up together for final disposal.

SLP (C) No. 11771 of2003

2. All that the High Court has done is to treat the petition filed before it under Section 115 of the Code as a proceeding initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondents had filed the revision originally and during the pendency of that revision the High Court appears to have taken a view that an order in an appeal arising from a proceeding under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, could not be challenged under Section 115 of the Code since the order was in the nature of an interlocutory order. In such a situation, in our view, the High Court rightly decided to permit the revision petitioners before it, to convert the same as a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution. After all, the court could have done it on its own, even without a motion in that behalf by the petitioner. We see absolutely no ground to interfere with the said order on the grounds raised in this special leave petition. Hence, this special leave petition is dismissed.

SLP (C) No. 11940 of 2003

3. Leave granted.

4. In this appeal, the appellant-plaintiff who had filed a suit, inter alia, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with his possession of the plaint schedule property and the structures thereon allegedly put up by him, challenges the order of the High Court by which that b Court set aside the order of the first appellate court and restored the limited order of interim injunction granted by the trial court. The trial court, after heari