ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Respondent at some length. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the Court below directing the parties to maintain status quo was wholly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The sole ground for seeking this direction was that if the contractor appointed by the Defendand/Respondent is permitted to remove the earth, it would not be practical or possible to measure the earth work undertaken by the Plaintiff Respondent for qualification of the claim of the Plaintiff. 2. We find no merit in this contention. To the first place before issuing such an injunction, the Court should have addressed itself to the question, firstly, whether the Plaintiff Respondent has a prima facie case, and secondly, whether the balance of convenience lies in his favour. We have gone through the order and find that the Court below has not consider-ed the first aspect of the case at all. As mentioned above, the sold ground for issuing the injunction is that if order for status quo is not passed it will not be possible to decide issue No. 4 which concerns the dispute about the extent of work undertaken by the Plaintiff-Respondent. The ground stated in the order is wholly untenable. The parties have already led evidence on that issue and at the instance of the Plaintiff/Respondent himself a Vakil commissioner was appointed to carry out the measurement and submit its report. The Vakil Commissioner had already executed the commission and submitted his report. After all this material has come, there is hardly any justification for issuing an order for maintaining status quo. Such an order has serious re-percussions. The entire housing scheme approved in 1984 has come to a standstill resulting in great loss to beneficiaries of the scheme. On the other hand, the loss, if any, likely to be suffered by the Plaintiff-Respondent was a kind which would easily be compensated in terms of money. 3. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that no valid ground exists for (sic) the order of status quo. 4. On the other hand, the loss, if any, likely to be suffered by the Plaintiff-Respondent was a kind which would easily be compensated in terms of money. 3. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that no valid ground exists for (sic) the order of status quo. 4. So far as the question whether in view of the technical nature of the work the Court should appoint an engineer to carry out the measurements goes, we think that the question can be considered by the Court below itself. The Appellant has already filed objections against the report submitted by the appointed Vakil Commissioner in this connection and prayed for such an appointment. We, therefore, refrain from making any comments on the merit of the objection filed by the Defendant Appellant as it will be for the Court below to consider the same. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Court below directing the parties to maintain status quo is set aside. The Court below shall however endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the Appellant on payment of usual charges within three days.