Judgment :- 1. This C.R.P. filed by (be defendants 1 to 5 in the suit, is against tbe order dated 26 10-1989 passed in I.A. 1261 of 1989 in O.S. 1243 of 1989 on the file of the District Mun-sifs Court, Salem, appointing a Commissioner to remove the seal put up on the lock of the suit building by the defendants-revision petitioners and for the Commissioner to see whether there are any garments in the said suit property. On the same day, the said lower Court also granted an interim injunction order in I.A. 1260 of 1989 against the defendants-revision petitioners restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents herein of the said suit building. Against the said injunction order, it is said that a C.M.A. has been filed in the District Court, Salem. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted as follows: The Government assigned the suit property to Tamil Nadu Government Officials Union, the 9th defendant in the suit for using it as a recreation club; under the said assignment, the said Union is prohibited from leasing it out to any third party; the said Union has put up some further construction on the said property and illegally leased it out to the respondent-plaintiffs, who illegally carried on garment business in the said property; despite notice dated 3-10-1989 to the respondents herein, they did not vacate; hence on 7-10-1989 the said building was sealed; thereafter, the respondents have filed this suit for a permanent injunction, restraining the revision petitioners from interfering with their possession of the said building; as stated above in I.A. 1260 of 1989, they got interim injunction on 26-10-1989 and on the same day in I.A. 1261 of 1989 the above referred to order was also passed; against the said order in I.A. 1161 of 1989 this revision has been fifed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the above said order amounted to giving back possession of the suit building to the respondents and that they could not have such a relief of possession; except by way of a suit and that hence the impugned order is illegal. In support of this contention he cited the decision reported in Ramakrishna v. Asst. Director of Ex. S.W. Board 1. In support of this contention he cited the decision reported in Ramakrishna v. Asst. Director of Ex. S.W. Board 1. He particularly relied on the following passage in the said judgment:— “Even if forcible possession has been taken by the Government as a quandom lessor the quandom tenant is entitled to get back possession of the property under S 9 of the Specific Relief Act, If on the date of riling the petition the petitioner has been thrown out of the premises even by force he cannot seek restoration of possession in these proceedings by getting a writ of mandamus as his remedy is only to claim damages or other reliefs in other appropriate forums.” So, the learned counsels contention is that by sealing the premises on 7-10-1989, the Government got possession of the property and that even assuming it is illegal, only by way of suit, the respondents-plaintiffs can get back possession and that in the respondents above suit for injunction, by obtaining the order sought to be revised, they cannot get back possession. 4. But, in view of what was further observed in the very same decision referred to above, the above said contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is not sustainable. In that case, the Government forcibly removed major portion of the articles lying in the building in question therein and sealed the building. Even in such a situation, the learned Judge held that the said act would not amount to dispossession of the person who was in possession of the said building. In the present case, what has been done is only sealing of the premises and not remov ing any articles lying there. The learned Judge in the above said decision observed as follows:— “But if on the date of filing of the writ petition he is in possession of the premises either physical or constructive he is entitled to seek protection of this court. In the counter affidavit, since it has been admitted that the petitioner did not vacate the premises though he has removed major portion of his articles—and had locked the premises and went away, he should be taken to have been in possession of the property, and merely because the first respondent has sealed the premises with the help of police and Revenue officials it will not mean that the petitioner has been completely dispossessed.” 5. So, in the present case, merely because of the sealing of the building in question, it cannot be held that the respondents were dispossessed. So they continue to be in possession even though the sealing was done on 7-101989. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in appointing a Commissioner to remove the said seal. Further, as on today, the above said injunction order given in I.A. 1260 of 1989 is in force. Even though the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submit that an appeal has been filed ag ainst the said order, he has not given me the said appeal number, nor is he able to state whether any interim suspension of the injunction had been ordered in the said appeal. Further, even in the counter affidavit to I.A. 1261 of 1989, the petitioners do not state that they have taken possession of the property by sealing the said premises. The said counter affidavit only says that ‘the Tahsildar has put the seal on 7-10-1989 to avoid law and order problem and further illegal constructions.’ So, the se al was put not to take back possession. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also was unable to point out any provision of law or authority, under which his clients could put the above said seal on the suit building. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners alternatively also urged that the order sought to be revised was beyond the scope of the suit. I do not think so with reference to the first part of the order, viz, direction to the Commissioner to remove the said seal. The suit is for a permanent injunction, restraining the revision petitioners from interfering with the possession of the respondents and as stated above, interim injunction was also given. In the said circumstances, it is but proper that the seal put up by the revision petitioners must be removed. So, so far as the direction given to the Commissioner to remove the seal is concerned, it cannot be said that it is beyond the scope of the suit. But the other part of the order sought to be revised, viz, directing the Commissioner to take an inventory of the goods found there, 1 think, the said direction is beyond the scope of the suit. 7. But the other part of the order sought to be revised, viz, directing the Commissioner to take an inventory of the goods found there, 1 think, the said direction is beyond the scope of the suit. 7. Therefore, I confirm the above said first part of the order sought to be revised giving direction to remove the above said seal. The latter part of the said order, giving direction to the Commissioner to take an inventory, is set aside. Accordingly, the order sought to be revised is modified, deleting only the latter portion giving direction to the Commissioner to take inventory of the articles found in the suit building. This civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.