JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 8-5-1986 annexure 7 passed by the District Judge, Kheri whereby the petitioners' appeal directed against the order of Trial Court dated 6-3-1986 annexure 5 has been dismissed. 2. It appears that the plaintiff Opposite Party No. 1 filed suit against the petitioners for injunction. It further appears that the claim of plaintiff-opposite party was that the petitioners were threatening to raise as wall over the land in suit which, if raised, would leave him without exit from his house. The Trial Court granted interim injunction to restrain the defendants from raising the wall but before this injunction could be served, the wall had already been constructed. Thereafter the plaintiff moved another application seeking interim mandatory injunction to command the defendants to open a passage in the wall so as to provide ingress and aggress to the plaintiff's house. The application was allowed by the Trial Court. The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 preferred appeal against this order of the Trial Court before the learned District Judge raising the plea that they had not been served with the notice of the application and, therefore, the interim mandatory injunction had been given in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the said appeal petitioners 2 and 5 had been impleaded as respondents. In the impugned order the learned District Judge has observed that the interim order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be maintained as without that the plaintiff will be a prisoner in his house, inasmuch as he will have no exit from his house. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned District Judge firstly on the ground that after the plaintiff had got his application for prohibitory injunction dismissed, it was not open to him to make another application for mandatory interim injunction. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. The earlier application had obviously become infructuous and nothing remained for its disposal of that application would not debar the plaintiff from making another application for different kind of relief. 4. It may be that the petitioners did not have sufficient opportunity to put up their case before the Trial Court but they had sufficient opportunity to up their case before the Appellate Court. 4. It may be that the petitioners did not have sufficient opportunity to put up their case before the Trial Court but they had sufficient opportunity to up their case before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has referred to the commissioner's report and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff would be a prisoner in his own house interim order granted by the Trial Court was not maintained. In the writ petition the petitioner states that this observation is incorrect as one side there is house of plaintiff's own brother and the plaintiff would have passage for his houses through that house. This plea was not raised before the learned District Judge as is apparent from the memorandum of appeal, a copy of which has been filed along with supplementary affidavit dated 24-7-1986. This plea cannot be entertained at this stage. If the petitioner had raised this plea, the plaintiff could make his defence regarding it. 5. It is next contended that the houses in respect of which the passage has been allowed by the two courts below is not the residential house of the plaintiff had there is only one room in that house and the petitioner's residential house is elsewhere. It may be that the petitioner's residential house is elsewhere but if the allegedly one room house exists, he is entitled to go into and come out of this house also. 6. It is next submitted that the wall was not raised by the defendants in violation of any order of the court and, therefore, the impugned order could not be passed. It may be that the was not raised in violation of any order of the court inasmuch as by the time the wall was raised the interim prohibitory injunction had not been served upon the defendants but that does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief at the interim stage. On the facts of the present case the interim relief granted by two court below calls for no interference. 7. The learned Counsel than submitted that the interim order passed by two courts below amounts to deciding the suit ex parte and now there remains nothing for disposal. On the facts of the present case the interim relief granted by two court below calls for no interference. 7. The learned Counsel than submitted that the interim order passed by two courts below amounts to deciding the suit ex parte and now there remains nothing for disposal. I am unable to agree with his submission as the entire wall has not been directed to be demolished and only a portion of the wall is directed to be demolished so as to provide ingress and aggress to the plaintiff's house. 8. It is lastly submitted that the court below have passed the interim order without recording any finding regard the title to the land. The question of title cannot be gone into at this stage but on the facts of the present case the interim order as stated above was called for. 9. Any observation made in the above judgment is only for the purposes of disposal of the present petition and it will not affect the disposal of the suit. 10. In view of the above, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.