I. M. QUDDUSI, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing of. the order dated 22-9-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1995 Chandra Mohan Bhandariv. Dr. PC. Whorra and others to the extent that he did not direct the parties to maintain the status quo ante or direct the defendants-respon dents 3 and 4 to reconstruct the separating wall as it existed during the pendency of application for temporary injunction before the trial Court or permit the petitioners to make necessary amendment in its pleadings to make an application for interim injunction as is necessary for a direction of raising of the supporting wall felled after the passing of the order dated 26-6-1995 passed by Munsiff Dehradun and to consider and decide the application aforesaid in accordance with law within such stipulated period as this Court may consider and deem necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of first floor of the property bearing the municipal number 57/3, Hardwar Road, Dehradun along with certain structures on the ground floor and a 10 feet wide open space abetting Hardwar Road. The first floor of the property is supported by walls of the shops which are situated on the ground floor. The petitioners No. 1 purchased the property in question from its earlier owner Shrimati Mayadevi through a registered sale deed. It is alleged that at the time of the execution of the sale deed Shrimati Mayadevi made it clear that the tenant or the owner of the shops on the ground floor will have no right to change the position of any wall of any shop. Petitioner No. 2is the attorney of petitioner No. 2. The shops in question are owned by respondents 3 and 4. Possession of these shops was trans ferred by its owner the respondent No. 2 to them. 3. Petitioner No. 2is the attorney of petitioner No. 2. The shops in question are owned by respondents 3 and 4. Possession of these shops was trans ferred by its owner the respondent No. 2 to them. 3. The petitioners filed a suit for per manent injunction in the Court of the Munsiff Dehradun which was registered as Suit No. 378 of 1994 in which they prayed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any way removing or altering the position of any wall of the shops or doing any Act or omission to waken the property of the petitioners on the first floor and further restraining them from raising any con struction or causing any obstruction or hindrance in the 10 feet wide open space abetting Hardwar Road, the forming part of property No. 57/3, (new number 176/152) near Araghar Chowk, Dehradun, An application for interim injunction to the same extent as the permanent injunction aforesaid was sought. It appears that the suit was filed on 7th November, 1994 on which date the application for tem porary injunction was heard and a tem porary injunction was granted restraining the defendants respondents No. 3 and 4 from removing the wall and from changing the nature of the property. 4. The defendants-respondents 3 and 4 contested the suit and filed their written statement. They also filed objections to the application for the interim order. It has been contended by the answering respon dents that as owner of the two shops on the ground floor they have a legal right to remove a portion of the partition wall to widen the door between the two shops and they have been doing their own rights. It has further been contended that there was a door measuring 5 x 7 in height connect ing both the shops from inside. The answering respondents to make the two shops more useful intended to widen the door by making it 11 x 11 in width and keeping the height intact i. e. 7. Thus, the entire partition wall was not removed but only a portion of the partition wall was to be removed by putting a corresponding beam under the able guidance of an ar chitect. Thus, the entire partition wall was not removed but only a portion of the partition wall was to be removed by putting a corresponding beam under the able guidance of an ar chitect. The answering respondents have no intention to damage the property nor in fact they have damaged it because they knew that damage to any portion whether it be wall or any other construction will damage the entire property and not only the first floor portion. 5. The learned Munsiff Dehradun after considering the facts and circumstan ces of the case as well as the objections filed by the respondents 3 and 4 rejected the application 6-Ga vide her order dated 26th May, 1995 holding that prima facie no case for interim injunction is made out. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff, Dehradun dated 26-5-1995 the petitioner preferred Miscel laneous Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1995. In the appeal the petitioners succeeded in get ting interim injunction in their favour on 27-6-1996 but till the service of the injunc tion order the respondents had already demolished a part of the wall upto a dis tance of 10 feet and height of 7 feet. There after the petitioners filed an application for directing the respondents to maintain the status quo ante. The appeal was finally heard along with the applications and objections filed by the answering respon dents by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun who vide order dated 22-9-1995 while allowing the appeal with costs, set aside the impugned order passed by the Court below dated 26-6-1995 and the defendants were restrained from removing the remaining existing wall intervening the two shops and also from raising any con struction over the land lying in front of the two shops of the defendants abetting Hardwar Road till the disposal of the suit. While making the said order the learned Judge has held that the balance of con venience lies in favour of the plaintiff be cause if the wall is removed then the danger of damage of first floor accom modation is there but if the injunction is granted then the defendants will not be put to any inconvenience as there is already an open space of 5, 6 connecting the two shops. So far irreparable injury is con cerned the learned court below held that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury because the plaintiffs residential accom modation on the first floor will be put to danger of falling whereas there is no ques tion of any injury to the defendants. The learned court below has also observed that the intervening wall of the two shops upto a distance of 10, 11 and upto a height of 7 feet has already been demolished by the defendants, but there is some more wall in between the two shops, and the defendants as per the sale-deed in their favour are not entitled to construct the passage or to make any construction over it, and hence the plaintiffs were entitled for injunction. 7. It may be noticed here that the defendants respondents 3 and 4 have not challenged the order, dated 22-9-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dehradun in this Court. 8. The petitioners grievance is only to the extent that the learned Additional District Judge has not directed the main tenance of the status quo ante or the defen dants to reconstruct the wall as it existed during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction. 9. Since the application for tem porary injunction was rejected by the learned Munsiff, Dehradun and the inter im injunction order was passed in the ap peal was served on the respondents 2 to 4 when a portion of the wall in question upto the distance of 10 feet 11 and height of 7 feet was already demolished by the respondents, the learned Additional Dis trict Judge could not direct to maintain the status quo ante or to reconstruct the separating wall as for this purpose the petitioners will have to amend their plead ings. An observation to this effect has al ready been made by the learned court below. It has been further observed that had it been the case that the wall was demolished after the service of the injunc tion order or even after the knowledge of such order, the order for maintenance of status quo ante could have been passed. But such case is not there. 10. It has been further observed that had it been the case that the wall was demolished after the service of the injunc tion order or even after the knowledge of such order, the order for maintenance of status quo ante could have been passed. But such case is not there. 10. It is indeed correct that when the respondents 2 to 4 have demolished a part of the wall in question it is their sole responsibility that due to this Act no damage may be caused to the property of the petitioners, specially to the first floor of the property in question, when this peti tion was filed and ad interim order was passed on 17-10-1995 to the effect that the learned District Judge Dehradun may depute an Advocate Commissioner to in spect the disputed premises and submit his report within two weeks about the condi tion of the building after the demolition of the foundation pillars of the intervening wall by the respondents. On the basis of the above report in case there is any damage to the building, the learned District Judge was authorised to issue necessary direc tions immediately for raising temporary foundation pillar so that the building may not fall down or damaged in any manner. Further, if any cracks have crept in and there is danger to the building the learned District Judge would direct for such con structions as may be necessary and the petitioner would make an application for issue of commission within a week and would deposit the expenses. In pursuance of this order the learned District Judge deputed Advocate Commissioner who submitted his report on 3-11-1995. Against the report of the Vakil Commis sioner objections were filed and the learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 11-12-1995 directed to con struct a temporary foundation pillar in accordance with the report of the Ar chitect filed by the applicant by 18-12-1995 failing which the applicants may raise con struction of the said foundation pillar at the expense of the respondents. There after vide order dated 18-12-1995 the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 11-12-1995 was stayed by this Court till 31st January, 1996. There after vide order dated 18-12-1995 the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 11-12-1995 was stayed by this Court till 31st January, 1996. Thereafter, the case was listed on 22-1-1996 and ul timately on 16-2-1996 the case was listed on which date this Court on the allegations of learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, to the effect that the learned Advocate Commissioner was biased, as mentioned in paragraph 6 (2) of the supplementary counter- affidavit, in the sense that he made an ex parte inspection and when he visited the premises in dispute he did not allow the respondent or any member of his family to go up-stairs even though the task for which he has to observe in his report are the alleged cracks in the wall on the first floor, this Court directed that an Ad vocate Commissioner may be sent by this Court for spot inspection and with the consent of the parties Sri Rajendra Kumar Misra, learned Counsel was deputed to Act as an Advocate Commissioner who submitted his report after supplying copies of the same to the learned Counsel for both the sides on 23rd February, 1996. According to the report the cause of dis pute is a dividing wall between the two shops. The disputed wall is 11 feet 9 inches long and 11 inches thick and in the wall there is a passage 5 feet 6 inches. The respondents have widened the passage from 5 feet 6 inches to 7 feet 2 inches but after breaking the wall they constructed two pillars on both the ends of the wall having 11 inches x 161/4" thick pillars and on both the pillars they have put an iron beam of 11 1/4" thick in order to give the support to roof wall which lying on the first floor in the house. The Advocate Commis sioner has reported that the additional pillars contracted at both the ends of the wall having thickness of 11" x 16,1/4" clear ly gives an impression that it must have been constructed to take heavy load upon them. The Advocate Commis sioner has reported that the additional pillars contracted at both the ends of the wall having thickness of 11" x 16,1/4" clear ly gives an impression that it must have been constructed to take heavy load upon them. The Advocate Commissioner has also found that the apprehension of the petitioner is not so genuine because the respondents themselves have taken due care and this is further fortified by the report of the Advocate Commissioner that he did not see any crack in front side of building which could be said to be dangerous for then building at present. 11. Considering the prayer of the petitioner, in the light of the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that it will not be possible to grant the relief of quashing the order dated 22-9-1995 to the extent that it does not direct the parties to maintain status quo ante and directing the defendants respondents 3 and 4 to reconstruct the separating wall as it ex isted during the pendency of the applica tion for temporary injunction inasmuch as the appeal of the petitioner has been al lowed and temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioner has been granted. It may be mentioned that the suit of the petitioner is still pending and if he suc ceeds in the suit, the relief prayed for would be granted to him automatically. In the matter of temporary injunction it may be that the defendants of the suit may be injected from doing certain things but in the nature of relief of temporary injunc tion it can hardly be ordered that the thing done before the grant of injunction should be redone, specially, in view of the finding of the Advocate Commissioner that there is no immediate danger to the property. A direction to the Court below to decide the matter expeditiously, in the facts and cir cumstances of the case would meet the ends of justice. Further, the petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings advised to them in this regard. 12. A direction to the Court below to decide the matter expeditiously, in the facts and cir cumstances of the case would meet the ends of justice. Further, the petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings advised to them in this regard. 12. With regard to the next part of the prayer made in the writ petition that the petitioners may be permitted to make the necessary amendment in the pleadings and to make an application for interim injunction, I am of the opinion that it is always open to a party to move an applica tion, if he is so advised and, if such an application is moved, the Court con cerned will certainly adjudicate upon the same and pass appropriate orders in ac cordance with law. I do not think that there is any necessity to give any such direction in the present writ petition. 13. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, court below is directed to decide the matter ex peditiously. Petition dismissed. .