K. S. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of I. A. 6857/95 filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiffs. ( 2 ) SUIT was filed, inter-alia, alleging that the plaintiffs are the recorded owners in possession of 3,000 square yards of land comprised in Khasra No. 489/55/2 admeasuring 5 bighas and 18 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Sheikh Sarai and bearing Municipal No. 45, Malviya Nagar Corner, New Delhij part of the built-up portion is being used for running business while the remaining for residence. Measurementf the plot is 180 ft. x 102 ft. Suit property is situated on the road which leads from Panchsheel Park to Malviya Nagar, Sheikh Sarai and Saket and the total width of the road is 80 ft. It is alleged that opposite to the suit property Archaeological Survey of India has encroached upon a portion of the road thereby reducing the width of the road by about 15 ft. Defendant is trying to make up for 15 ft. road illegally encroached upon by Archaeological Survey of India by claiming that the plaintiffs are occupying a part of the road. It was prayed that by passing a decree of permanent injunction the defendant and its employees be restrained from digging up any part of the suit property. ( 3 ) IN the said I. A. 6857/95 by the order dated 4th July, 1995 parties were directed to maintain status-quo as of date till the disposal thereof. ( 4 ) DEFENDANT contested the suit and also the application by filing written statement and reply wherein identical pleas have been raised. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have stated that the area of the suit land is 3,000 sq. yds. and the dimension of the plot is 180 ft. x 102 ft. which comes to 2,040 sq. yds. Moreover, area occupied by plaintiffs at the site as given by the Local Commissioner in his report is neither 3,000 sq. yds. nor 2,040 sq. yds. It is stated that according to the layout plan approved by DDA in the year 1980, the width of the road in front of the suit property is 80 ft. as has been shown to the Local Commissioner during inspection. 80 ft. road is in existence in all parts adjoining the suit property. yds. nor 2,040 sq. yds. It is stated that according to the layout plan approved by DDA in the year 1980, the width of the road in front of the suit property is 80 ft. as has been shown to the Local Commissioner during inspection. 80 ft. road is in existence in all parts adjoining the suit property. Wall of the Archaeological Department is very old and is in line with the other properties of Panchsheel which is an approved colony. Plaintiffs have encroached upon the municipal land by about 15 to 20 ft. and the status-quo order is liable to be vacated. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, on the joint request made by the parties Counsel, by the order dated 4th July, 1995, Sh. Deepak Khadaria, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the disputed site, take measurements of the property in possession of the plaintiffs, and report as to whether there was any encroachment by the occupant of the property located opposite to the suit property. Report of the Local Commissioner dated 6th July, 1995 alongwith the site plan are placed on the file against which no objections have been filed by the plaintiffs. In para No. 7 of the report it is stated that the area of the plaintiffs property is in uneven rectangular shape measuring 100 ft. on one side and 118 ft. on the other side in width. In para No. 10 it is further stated that opposite to the plaintiffs property and across the road boundary wall of the monument of the Archaeological Survey of India exists. Boundary wall seems to be very old construction and is about 4 ft. high. The total width of the road from the boundary wall facing the road to the plaintiffs/property is 68 ft. it will not be out of place to state that by another order dated 24th January, 1996, an Engineer of the defendant was permitted to visit the suit property and take measurements and prepare a map after giving notice to the plaintiffs. Pursuant to that order the defendant has filed the affidavit of Suraj Bhan, AE (Project), South Zone alongwith the drawing Annexure R-2. Pursuant to that order the defendant has filed the affidavit of Suraj Bhan, AE (Project), South Zone alongwith the drawing Annexure R-2. In para No. 5 of this affidavit it is averred that on 7th February, 1996 survey was conducted and the total area in possession of the plaintiffs including the encroached area was found to be 1,915. 93 sq. yds. which does not tally with the area stated in the plaint. Area encroached upon is 200. 15 sq. yds. In para No. 8 it is further stated that at the behest of Panchsheela Co-operative House Building Society, layout plan was sanctioned by the defendant in the year 1967 and as per the layout plan width of the road in front of the plaintiffs property is 80 ft. and 80 ft. read is in existence in all the parts adjoining the plaintiffs property. ( 7 ) IT was not disputed before me that as per the sanctioned layout plan width of the road is 80 ft. and at the disputed site it stands reduced to 68 ft. Case taken up by the plaintiffs is that Archaeological Survey of India has encroached upon a portion of the road opposite to the plaintiffs property thereby reducing the width of the road by about 15 ft. which assertion has been emphatically denied by the defendant. As stated earlier boundary wall of the monument of the Archaeological Survey of India has been found to be very old by the Local Commissioner. From the site plan filed alongwith Local Commissioner s report and the drawing Annexure R-2 filed alongwith the affidavit of said Suraj Bhan, AE (Project), it is manifest that the boundary wall of the monument facing the road is in line with the other properties on that side and further that 80 ft. road is in existence in all the parts adjoining the plaintiffs property. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that the wall of the monument of the Archaeological Department opposite the suit property extends inside the road prima facie seems to be untrue. Aforesaid site plan and the drawing further indicate that it is the suit property a portion whereof extends inside the road. Extent of that encroachment as per the aforementioned affidavit of Suraj Bhan, AE (Project) is around 200. 15 sq yds. Aforesaid site plan and the drawing further indicate that it is the suit property a portion whereof extends inside the road. Extent of that encroachment as per the aforementioned affidavit of Suraj Bhan, AE (Project) is around 200. 15 sq yds. During the course of arguments much emphasis was placed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the extracts of khasra girdawaris filed b/the plaintiffs but those are of little assistance as they relate to land of Khasra No. 489/55 instead of 489/55/2 as noted in the plaint. Dimension thereto also does not tally with the land occupied by the plaintiffs. From the aforesaid discussion, it must follow that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prima facie make out a case for grant of the ad interim injunction sought for. Instead of the plaintiffs it is the defendant who is suffering irreparable injury because of stoppage of work of laying water drain in front of the suit property due to the status-quo order. Obviously, balance of convenience too does not lie in plaintiffs favour. Status-quo order made on 4th July, 1995 thus deserves to be vacated. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, I. A. is dismissed and status-quo order dated 4th July, 1995 is vacated.